Remember me
▼ Content

Because global warming from emissions is real...



Page 2 of 4<1234>
18-05-2019 07:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
HarveyH55 wrote:
What sort of hunting would someone need a semi-automatic rifle for anyway?

Varmint hunting, deer hunting, etc. Semi-automatics make good guns for pretty much any kind of hunting except fast flying birds.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Does it really take 30 rounds, fast as you can pull the trigger, to bring down Bambi's mom?

No, but it might take a few to stop the bear that's chasing you.
HarveyH55 wrote:
My experience as a youth, was you usually only get on shot, sometimes a second, and that's pretty much it for a while. There are already enough idiots in the woods during hunting season, who start shooting when they see a bush move a little. Can't imagine being out there, with someone spraying thirty rounds everywhere.

They don't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
For home defense, a shotgun is usually the best choice.

Depends on the size of the home or ranch and what you are defending against.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Got the best chance of hitting your intended target, while not as likely to kill anyone else by accident. A rifle bullet can fly a good distance, and still be lethal. It's not like in the movies, those stray bullets go some place, If you have to take the time to chamber each round, you are going to be more careful where you shoot it, less waste, less risk to others you don't intend to hurt.

I own three semiautomatic pistols. I aim each round pretty well. If I have to use one in self defense, I will keep shooting until the threat is stopped. Policed are trained to do the same thing.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe semi-automatic weapons should be so easy for anyone to own.

You don't get to choose. You are not the king.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just no real good reason to have one, unless you intent to kill people, with little regard.

Killing a person is no joke. If it has to be done, so it must be. I will use whatever means I need to use to do it. Guns are used in self-defense, security, hunting, competitions, starting avalanches in a controlled manner, signaling over distance, rigging, protecting crops, and a whole host of other purposes.

Who are you to decide what action is appropriate for everyone? You are not the king.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd like to see more open carry,

Open carry is fine, but sometimes it's better not to scare the villagers.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and those people should be required to take a test annually, to demonstrate that hey can actually hit what their shooting at, and not place others at risk.

Unrelated factors. Annual shooting tests do not have anything to do with placing others at risk.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Takes practice, it's a big responsibility, and guns aren't toys.

True, they aren't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Even our police officers are getting a little careless these days.

They always have been. Nothing's new here.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Been two accidental discharges in the past month, where a bystander was injured, and several others earlier this year.

Happens all the time.
HarveyH55 wrote:
That's just locally, not sure about the state, or nationally.

All levels of government.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Should never happen with a highly trained professional.

Who said a police officer is highly trained, or even professional?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Firearms aren't going away.

Quite right.
HarveyH55 wrote:
If people can buy them, it's not that hard to make them, if you want one bad enough.

You can make a functional firearm using nothing but materials found on the secure side of any major airport terminal.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's really best, that people can legally buy and own them though.

The founders agree with you on that one.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The laws are a little outdated,

The Constitution of the United States is never outdated.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and too many people want to used them in populated areas.

Guns have always been used in populated areas.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's nothing like when the laws were written.

Yes it is.
HarveyH55 wrote:
People used there guns often, it was important to learn to shoot, and shoot well, since all firearms were single shot, muzzle loaded, could afford to miss often, and not much chance of hitting a neighbor, when you did.

WRONG. A repeating flintlock rifle, the London-Made Lorenzonis, was developed in the late 1600's.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A person caught in the act of committing a crime, should accept the consequences.

They will. They will have no choice. Criminals only need to get caught once.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Running, is an admission of guilt, and should be a shooting offense.

WRONG. Running is often people just running to get away from someone with a gun. This is a good tactic, BTW. You should weave side to side somewhat when you run away, but the key difference is to put distance between you and the shooter.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's a public service, since that individual would only just go find another potential victim, a short time later.

Someone shooting up a school generally as about 10 minutes of life left or less.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Most of the crimes that plague us, wouldn't be so appealing, not worth dying for.

What about defending yourself, your home, your family, your town, or your country? Are they not worth shooting someone for it?


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2019 07:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
That type of gun has long been banned.

WRONG. I can buy a 30 round magazine today.
dehammer wrote:
No one seriously cared.

Obviously they did, since they were and are buying these magazines.
dehammer wrote:
But there are attempts not to limit your guns to only 1 or 2 bullets. There are others that want to require that you only get one shot per trigger pull. There are some places that want to require that you keep your bullets in a different building. How do you have home protection if you have to run out to the shed to get bullets?

Such laws are being overturned.
dehammer wrote:
It doesn't matter if people want to use them in populated areas, since that's where you are most likely going to be attacked by criminals that do not bother to follow the laws.

This is absolutely right.
dehammer wrote:
Personally, it would not bother me, since I was trained in the construction and firing of wrist bows. These are multi-shot (usually 3 on each side of the wrist, 12 in total) mini crossbows. There are no laws governing them since they are so rare.

Yes there are. I suggest you learn them!


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2019 11:07
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(823)
It wasn't that semi-automatics could be used for hunting, it was about what sort of hunting can you do with them, that you can't with any other rifle or pistol? They basically just lower the skill level needed to hit a target, by allowing you more bullets to accomplish the task.

Specified criminal running away, are you a criminal? Or just a silly justification argument? Wouldn't be harder for you to run away from a semi-automatic?

Not calling for a ban on anything, just don't believe buying them, or owning them should be so simple, a little higher standard for those that have an actual need of them as tool, not just a cool toy.

People who carry in public, need to be tested often, reminds them it's a big responsibility, insures they practice occasionally.

School/church shooters, 10 seconds? Least 5 sitting jail, waiting for trial. Most of them take their own lives. Think the police use to help them with that, before body cameras. Boston marathon bomber is still alive, don't know why. Should have been hung publically.

I prefer the open carry, it's a better deterrent. A person considering committing a crime, has an obvious reason to think it's not such a great idea, less likely to be successful, unless he plans on dying.
18-05-2019 12:30
paramount99
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Because the climate problem is real all these imagined reasons scientists keep saying it is real - are false. Because the problem is real and crosses all national boundaries nations need to work together to address it effectively.

Dave - you are wasting yourself obsessing over "mistakes" that a more thorough understanding of mainstream science would show are resolved; trying to explain global warming that is already well understood but without the fossil fuel emissions (and conspiracies amongst scientists) isn't going to work.

Into the Night - your (and other's) special understanding that no-one can even know if the world is warming or cooling is pure bunk. It is warming and increasingly, it is confirmed by real world experiences as well as multiple independent kinds of measurement.

Dehammer - your imagined (and other's) conspiracy of Marxists planning to take over the world is nonsense. The extremists at the fringe? The majority don't listen to them. More importantly those developing appropriate policy don't listen to them. That majority of reasonable and reasoning people like me who are legitimately concerned are supporting a transition to low emissions by means that don't involve Socialist global dictatorships.

IbdaMann - your (and other's) green marxist religious scam is pure delusional nonsense; back in the real world taking mainstream expert advice seriously is entirely rational and reasonable and isn't religion no matter how often you say it. Saying so over and over might help convince yourself but from here, in the midst of people who want action of emissions there is not a single sign of dictatorial marxist tendencies.

Of course, within nations with elected governments with the rule of law there is a spectrum of views on where the line on government interventions on matters of what governments should be doing and what taxation levels should be - and that is not a case of people who want emissions regulation or carbon pricing promoting Marxist dictatorship, just democratic processes and the rule of law at work. A whole different debate.

Meanwhile you guys are going to have to continue to suck it up, because the climate issue is not ever going to go away, not ever in the lifetimes of any person now living. As more and more extreme real world impacts occur view like yours will be consigned to history - you are already at the fringes, barely worth engaging with.

Reasonable and informed people want strong emissions policies because the problem is real. Having the constructive contributions of the political Right would be welcomed by most of us - which kind of makes a point by itself.


I must say that during my years I have found the liberal left (they are heading from socialism to extreme communism these days at least in my reckoning - but likely without knowing it) seem not to have the ability or skill to see the wood for the trees... I became more aware of this during my three decades of playing competitive tennis (I learnt other (social) things as well as great tennis) where after playing at maybe twelve different clubs (to play against better and better players) and being surrounded by teachers (mostly they fit with the liberal left) I became aware of just how blinkered they were. So blinkered at times it was truly frightening. They seemed to live in this otherworldly bubble where what was happening in the real world wasn't actually sinking in through the thick outer shell. I quickly went from enjoying being part of this gathering to wanting to bang my head against the wall, and loosing complete respect for these human people. There were a number of, let's call them, Dons, at some of the clubs: mostly Oxbridge types and, oddly, I got on better with them than the teachers (they seemed separate entities - didn't like each other), as although they might have had opinions, you could bat them back and forth and in mutual appreciation, whereas the teachers would not budge on anything, as everything they knew (not much really) was fact in their eyes... They were un-bending. I know this seems like an odd story for this forum, but I really do believe these liberal left types are unwaveringly trapped in some un-seeing, blinding fog!!! And this is what I see all the time with global warming believers/followers... They live in a cultic like fog!!!
But thankfully, real science and not saudo science has more recently woken up to this madness and is starting to call these modern day (LOL) bringers of doom out!
The socialist/communist/Marxist threat part of all this will be unseen by these liberal lefty tree-huggers and snow-flakes... As the view from their haughty bubble hides most of what is real and is true...
They cannot be changed...
You try telling them they didn't invent wine - and see how they react.
18-05-2019 19:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It wasn't that semi-automatics could be used for hunting, it was about what sort of hunting can you do with them, that you can't with any other rifle or pistol?

More reliable hunting, hunting of multiple animals, hunting of fast moving animals, and of course protection from predatory animals after YOUR hide.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They basically just lower the skill level needed to hit a target, by allowing you more bullets to accomplish the task.

Yes they do. Hunters have been using semiautomatic weapons in the field for quite awhile now. They work, they can better withstand the rigors of the field and keep working, they are safer and more convenient to carry, and they can handle multiple targets.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Specified criminal running away, are you a criminal?
Why on Earth would you come to that question??
HarveyH55 wrote:
Or just a silly justification argument?
Not a silly justification argument. Running away from a shooter is the best way to keep yourself from being shot.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't be harder for you to run away from a semi-automatic?
No. This tells me you don't know anything about guns. You can shoot a double action revolver just as fast. You also don't know anything about how mass shootings occur. Such shooters generally are not firing more than once every few seconds. Most guns built since before the War of Secession (what most people call the Civil War) can handle that rate of fire. The only ones that can't are muzzle loaders.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Not calling for a ban on anything, just don't believe buying them, or owning them should be so simple, a little higher standard for those that have an actual need of them as tool, not just a cool toy.
YOU don't get to decide the purpose of owning a gun. You are not the king.
HarveyH55 wrote:
People who carry in public, need to be tested often, reminds them it's a big responsibility, insures they practice occasionally.

Not needed. Civil law handles irresponsible handling of a gun already. I go to the range fairly often myself, others just practice in their yard.
HarveyH55 wrote:
School/church shooters, 10 seconds?
10 minutes. Typo.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Least 5 sitting jail, waiting for trial. Most of them take their own lives.
Within 10 minutes.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Think the police use to help them with that, before body cameras.
They still do, body cameras notwithstanding.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Boston marathon bomber is still alive, don't know why.

Ask the State of Massachusetts.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Should have been hung publically.

That sort of thing has gone out of style. Too horrifying to witness for some.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I prefer the open carry, it's a better deterrent.

It can be, and I open carry when I work security patrol at my local airport (we had a TSA guy but he was completely ineffective...he eventually quit). The airport mechanics and aircraft owners do that now.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A person considering committing a crime, has an obvious reason to think it's not such a great idea, less likely to be successful, unless he plans on dying.

True, and I have seen a friend of mine use his gun just exactly that way (he didn't even have to draw it), however, there are times to carry concealed. Long guns of course are carried openly.

Did you know that an open carry holster can be considered concealed carry if it's covered with a coat?


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2019 19:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
paramount99 wrote:
Ken Fabian wrote:
Because the climate problem is real all these imagined reasons scientists keep saying it is real - are false. Because the problem is real and crosses all national boundaries nations need to work together to address it effectively.

Dave - you are wasting yourself obsessing over "mistakes" that a more thorough understanding of mainstream science would show are resolved; trying to explain global warming that is already well understood but without the fossil fuel emissions (and conspiracies amongst scientists) isn't going to work.

Into the Night - your (and other's) special understanding that no-one can even know if the world is warming or cooling is pure bunk. It is warming and increasingly, it is confirmed by real world experiences as well as multiple independent kinds of measurement.

Dehammer - your imagined (and other's) conspiracy of Marxists planning to take over the world is nonsense. The extremists at the fringe? The majority don't listen to them. More importantly those developing appropriate policy don't listen to them. That majority of reasonable and reasoning people like me who are legitimately concerned are supporting a transition to low emissions by means that don't involve Socialist global dictatorships.

IbdaMann - your (and other's) green marxist religious scam is pure delusional nonsense; back in the real world taking mainstream expert advice seriously is entirely rational and reasonable and isn't religion no matter how often you say it. Saying so over and over might help convince yourself but from here, in the midst of people who want action of emissions there is not a single sign of dictatorial marxist tendencies.

Of course, within nations with elected governments with the rule of law there is a spectrum of views on where the line on government interventions on matters of what governments should be doing and what taxation levels should be - and that is not a case of people who want emissions regulation or carbon pricing promoting Marxist dictatorship, just democratic processes and the rule of law at work. A whole different debate.

Meanwhile you guys are going to have to continue to suck it up, because the climate issue is not ever going to go away, not ever in the lifetimes of any person now living. As more and more extreme real world impacts occur view like yours will be consigned to history - you are already at the fringes, barely worth engaging with.

Reasonable and informed people want strong emissions policies because the problem is real. Having the constructive contributions of the political Right would be welcomed by most of us - which kind of makes a point by itself.


I must say that during my years I have found the liberal left (they are heading from socialism to extreme communism these days at least in my reckoning - but likely without knowing it)

The end goal of socialism is communism. What you see these days are more brazen people that believe in it. They aren't even bothering to hide what they are doing anymore.
paramount99 wrote:
seem not to have the ability or skill to see the wood for the trees...

Most liberals are what Stalin used to call 'useful idiots'. They do not understand that under socialist regimes, those same liberals will be downtrodden the same as all the rest. There can be only one dictator or oligarchy in the end.
paramount99 wrote:
I became more aware of this during my three decades of playing competitive tennis (I learnt other (social) things as well as great tennis) where after playing at maybe twelve different clubs (to play against better and better players) and being surrounded by teachers (mostly they fit with the liberal left) I became aware of just how blinkered they were. So blinkered at times it was truly frightening. They seemed to live in this otherworldly bubble where what was happening in the real world wasn't actually sinking in through the thick outer shell.

Exactly right. They speak a different language, have no idea of anything going on outside this bubble, and don't even realize there IS a bubble there and that they are in it.
paramount99 wrote:
I quickly went from enjoying being part of this gathering to wanting to bang my head against the wall, and loosing complete respect for these human people.

Understandable. It can be frustrating.
paramount99 wrote:
There were a number of, let's call them, Dons, at some of the clubs: mostly Oxbridge types and, oddly, I got on better with them than the teachers (they seemed separate entities - didn't like each other), as although they might have had opinions, you could bat them back and forth and in mutual appreciation, whereas the teachers would not budge on anything, as everything they knew (not much really) was fact in their eyes... They were un-bending. I know this seems like an odd story for this forum, but I really do believe these liberal left types are unwaveringly trapped in some un-seeing, blinding fog!!! And this is what I see all the time with global warming believers/followers... They live in a cultic like fog!!!

I call that fog the Church of Global Warming. Like the Church of Green, they both stem from the Church of Karl Marx. All three religions are fundamentalist in nature.
paramount99 wrote:
But thankfully, real science and not saudo science has more recently woken up to this madness and is starting to call these modern day (LOL) bringers of doom out!

Theories of science never went to sleep. They've always been there. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law show why the 'greenhouse gas' model cannot work. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
paramount99 wrote:
The socialist/communist/Marxist threat part of all this will be unseen by these liberal lefty tree-huggers and snow-flakes... As the view from their haughty bubble hides most of what is real and is true...

This is the nature of fundamentalism. The circular argument they are trying to prove is all. Anything outside of that is denied.
paramount99 wrote:
They cannot be changed...

Fundamentalists have lost the ability to reason. They are reduced to chanting their scripture mindlessly in an effort to try to prove their religion. All religions are based on some initial circular argument. It is also known as 'faith'.
paramount99 wrote:
You try telling them they didn't invent wine - and see how they react.

Haven't tried that! I don't drink, so I am not familiar with that culture. I can see what you are describing though!


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2019 21:22
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(823)
We can only hope that the liberals did enough damage to their own party, that even with millions of imported/immigrant voters, they don't have much chance in 2020. They can't seem to give up on removing Trump, seem a little scared of him, and the likelihood he's going to be in office another 4 years. The Clintons could dig up an seriously damaging dirt, and they are famous for it. Two years of investigation, unlimited resources, best spy organizations, could find anything useful either. Still, they hope to pull it off, on some vague technicalities in the reports or Trump's financials. They have 22 candidates running (new record?), all pretty much giving the same promise of free stuff, vague plans on how to pay for it all, like tax the rich, but no details or timeline on how that might be accomplished, without harming the working class. Higher taxes are a business expense, just rolls on down the money pile, for poor folks to collect, through higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, less benefits. They really can't go into any detail, because they have no intention of following through, their major campaign donors know this. These rich donors, also have the resources to dig up the dirt on most anyone, or make shit up, if they can't. Not always successful, but damaging, a distraction, and tend to add up.

I think most people like the free stuff offered, but don't really like the idea of changing the way they live. So far, the liberals have been able to pass out the freebies, by running up the national debt, or raising taxes on everybody, but that won't work for long. Trump's trade wars, isn't just putting us back into buying American made products, and making more of our own, but it's also going after the countries that lend the liberals all that money they like give out so freely. Trump will win the trade wars, we import a lot of stuff, because it's cheap, and mostly frivolous/trendy. Most of are exports are things other countries desperately need, and have little choice about eventually giving in. To make up their losses in the trade deals, they aren't going to be so generous on lending to the US, and will be wanting some of those trillions back, from past loans. I don't think they can change the terms, but can raise some hell over them. Takes congress a year, sometimes more (shutdowns), to figure out how to pay the bills, an how to spend what's left over. I think Trump is on the right road, keep consumer dollars in our own economy, rather than sending it overseas, cut off the loan money, and start bring American business back home, to produce the product we want and need right here, creating jobs. More people working, stronger businesses, more tax revenue, without raising the rates. Paying off some of our debts, will reduce our interest payments, freeing up more money. Congress should have so much trouble figuring out a budget, if they can stop wasting so much, or stealing...
18-05-2019 22:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
HarveyH55 wrote:
We can only hope that the liberals did enough damage to their own party, that even with millions of imported/immigrant voters, they don't have much chance in 2020.

I don't think they have much chance. They have no platform except hate and pie in the sky giveaways.
[/quote]
HarveyH55 wrote:
They can't seem to give up on removing Trump, seem a little scared of him, and the likelihood he's going to be in office another 4 years.

They are not a little scared of him. They are TERRIFIED of him. He exposes them for what they are very effectively, AND he's the President, capable of vetoing any crap the liberals in Congress send his way. They don't have the numbers to override his veto.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The Clintons could dig up an seriously damaging dirt, and they are famous for it.

Funny how dirt sure stuck to the Clintons.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Two years of investigation, unlimited resources, best spy organizations, could find anything useful either.

Because there was nothing to find. The Barr investigation might reveal how this dossier that the Mueller investigation was depending on was manufactured on how it to the FBI in the first place.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, they hope to pull it off, on some vague technicalities in the reports or Trump's financials.

Trump's financials are pretty obvious. He is a successful real estate investor and developer. His own properties are evidence of his business. Process technicalities are not enough to impeach a president. They are not a crime. It's no different than if you make a math error on your tax form and the IRS winds up sending you a letter. It's not a crime. If you actively refuse to pay your taxes, THAT is considered a crime.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They have 22 candidates running (new record?),

I believe the count reached 34 at one time. It's hard to keep track!

HarveyH55 wrote:
all pretty much giving the same promise of free stuff,

The basic promise of socialism.
HarveyH55 wrote:
vague plans on how to pay for it all, like tax the rich, but no details or timeline on how that might be accomplished, without harming the working class.

The basic lie of socialism.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Higher taxes are a business expense, just rolls on down the money pile, for poor folks to collect, through higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, less benefits. They really can't go into any detail, because they have no intention of following through, their major campaign donors know this. These rich donors, also have the resources to dig up the dirt on most anyone, or make shit up, if they can't. Not always successful, but damaging, a distraction, and tend to add up.

Socialism can only exist by stealing wealth. Useful idiots are a valuable resource to bring socialism about. They will lose like everyone else, of course, but they all think they will be part of the elite.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think most people like the free stuff offered, but don't really like the idea of changing the way they live. So far, the liberals have been able to pass out the freebies, by running up the national debt, or raising taxes on everybody, but that won't work for long.

Even now, faith in the dollar is teetering. It has improved somewhat under Trump at least.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Trump's trade wars,

Actually China's trade wars. Trump didn't start this war. He simply equalized the tariffs China was already charging US imports.
HarveyH55 wrote:
isn't just putting us back into buying American made products, and making more of our own, but it's also going after the countries that lend the liberals all that money they like give out so freely.

Trump is calling China on the carpet for their abusive tariffs. It is forcing China to deal with the economic bubble it built for itself. That bubble is massive, and China has nowhere to go.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Trump will win the trade wars, we import a lot of stuff, because it's cheap, and mostly frivolous/trendy.

It remains to be seen if China will be able to export much at all in the coming years...to anyone.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Most of are [our?] exports are things other countries desperately need, and have little choice about eventually giving in.

Don't sell us short! We export frivolous stuff too!
HarveyH55 wrote:
To make up their losses in the trade deals, they aren't going to be so generous on lending to the US, and will be wanting some of those trillions back, from past loans.

They are lending to the U.S. by buying U.S. bonds. This is a conservative investment most any central bank puts much of their portfolio on. The Chinese central bank is no exception. If that central bank fails, we don't have to pay those bonds back to them.

China is on the verge of failing.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they can change the terms, but can raise some hell over them.

They cannot force a change in the terms of the bonds they purchased. They can do nothing but stop buying them. Sure, the bond market will crash, but it's a bubble anyway.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Takes congress a year, sometimes more (shutdowns), to figure out how to pay the bills, an how to spend what's left over.

Senator Boondoogle's monument to government inefficiency and waste is expensive!


It's not about the expenses or how big the budget is. It's about the House, the Senate, and the President not agreeing on the budget.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think Trump is on the right road, keep consumer dollars in our own economy, rather than sending it overseas, cut off the loan money, and start bring American business back home, to produce the product we want and need right here, creating jobs. More people working, stronger businesses, more tax revenue, without raising the rates. Paying off some of our debts, will reduce our interest payments, freeing up more money. Congress should have so much trouble figuring out a budget, if they can stop wasting so much, or stealing...


Government debt does not affect interest rates. Interest rates are simply set by the Federal Reserve. It is price controls on money itself. Like all price controls, shortages necessarily occur.

Setting interest rates too high means money isn't available to borrow. Expansion stalls. Current projects can get the funding they need to complete them.

Setting rates too low means money is too available to borrow. Expansion races ahead with easy money to borrow. Easy money to borrow means more speculation. Bubbles form. These are unproductive investments. They don't produce wealth. They eventually cause a crash when someone starts calling BS on the investment bubble. That's what happened in the Saving and Loans before Carter, what happened in the stock market in the Guilded Age before and during Hoover and FDR, and also what happened in the dot com crash. The 2007 crash was caused by a bubble that formed in the house markets. In all cases, the Fed made money too easy to borrow and kept it there too long.

Price controls don't work. They never have.

Government waste has been around since there has been government! While such waste is a threat to a government's stability, it doesn't necessarily directly affect capitalism, for that operates outside of government.

It comes down to a simple but perplexing question:

Just what IS money? What is it that gives it value?

Is it the value of the paper? The value of what is printed on the paper? The value of a chunk of gold? The value of a chunk of metal stamped into a coin? You can't eat gold, and you can't survive on metal alone. Why, then, does ANY particular form of money, whether it be gold, silver, iron, pieces of paper, clamshells, pretty rocks, bits in a computer, or any other object get used as money?

And a question valid for today is:
What causes a population to switch what it uses for money to something else and what will that something else be?

That question affects not just the U.S., but international trade as well, for money is part of all of it whether it's dollars, pesos, pounds, Euros, gold, silver, Bitcoin, etc.

Just what IS money? What is it that gives it value? Why do societies change what they use for money? What triggers that change? What form does the new money take? Why the new money be valued over the old money?


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2019 03:38
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(823)
You miss read, the interest payment I was referring to is on the loans from other countries. Even the bonds you mention, should be paying out some sort of return, to those who buy them. Most bonds have a cash value, can be sold, cashed in. The company us to hand out US Savings Bonds, until Bill Clinton did something... After 6 months you could cash them in for more than half the face value, which is more than they cost. You'd have to hang on to them for 12 years, to get the full amount. Hope they don't expire, since I still have at
least three I didn't cash in. I didn't get them often, usually part of some special achievement, like perfect attendance. The bonds are with the awards, and lost in my clutter. Clinton really messed up a good thing too, they stop handing out a lot stuff like that, has something to do with paying taxes, as those rewards and freebies, were turned in to part of or pay. It was probably intended more to rob the rich guys of their bonuses. We seldom get more than an occasional Walmart Gift card, and a frozen turkey for Thanksgiving.
19-05-2019 11:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
Into the Night wrote: Just what IS money? What is it that gives it value? Why do societies change what they use for money? What triggers that change? What form does the new money take? Why the new money be valued over the old money?

Oh, pick me, pick me!

Currency is just a normalizer across goods and services, i.e. a unit of measure. Anything that serves this purpose is currency. If you have 165,000 points with your credit card with which to buy hotel stays, airline tickets, grooming products, a travel jacket for your dog, etc...you have currency.

Money is just physical currency. Dollars are money because you can hold them in your hand. Credit card points are currency but are not money. If the credit card company starts issuing point certificates then you have money.

The value of any currency is determined by the community of people who will accept that currency, i.e. the value of a currency is a subjective, human determination based on perceived legitimacy. The words used are "faith" and/or "confidence" in the same sense as applied to politicians. If something happens to shake that perception legitimacy, to shake that faith/confidence, then the currency's value takes a hit as fewer people will accept it or more people will require more of it for the same goods and services. The U.S. dollar is like a dug-in politician while the Venezuela Bolivar lost its no-confidence vote years ago. .

I'm here through Thursday.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-05-2019 19:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
HarveyH55 wrote:
You miss read, the interest payment I was referring to is on the loans from other countries. Even the bonds you mention, should be paying out some sort of return, to those who buy them. Most bonds have a cash value, can be sold, cashed in. The company us to hand out US Savings Bonds, until Bill Clinton did something... After 6 months you could cash them in for more than half the face value, which is more than they cost. You'd have to hang on to them for 12 years, to get the full amount. Hope they don't expire, since I still have at
least three I didn't cash in. I didn't get them often, usually part of some special achievement, like perfect attendance. The bonds are with the awards, and lost in my clutter. Clinton really messed up a good thing too, they stop handing out a lot stuff like that, has something to do with paying taxes, as those rewards and freebies, were turned in to part of or pay. It was probably intended more to rob the rich guys of their bonuses. We seldom get more than an occasional Walmart Gift card, and a frozen turkey for Thanksgiving.


The bond markets do not set our interest rates. They do have an interest rate of their own though, that is the payout for someone that buys the bond. If there are few people to buy bonds, their rate goes up. They have to pay more to entice more to buy them. If people stop buying these bonds entirely, the government has no choice but to tax for or print the money. Obama did both. Trump has reduced taxes to a sensible level again.

Raising taxes too far causes revolts. You might say Trump got elected partly because of the revolt against Obama and his policies, including taxing policies.

Printing more money then the amount of wealth that is being increased in the economy means more paper (or bits, actually) chasing a similar amount of wealth...inflation. The value of the dollar falls against commodity values.

What the Fed (and any central bank) tries to do is to balance the amount of money inserted into the economy against the amount of wealth being created, thus keeping the value of the dollar the same. This doesn't work, because they are always late to discover which way they should go.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2019 19:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Just what IS money? What is it that gives it value? Why do societies change what they use for money? What triggers that change? What form does the new money take? Why the new money be valued over the old money?

Oh, pick me, pick me!

Currency is just a normalizer across goods and services, i.e. a unit of measure. Anything that serves this purpose is currency. If you have 165,000 points with your credit card with which to buy hotel stays, airline tickets, grooming products, a travel jacket for your dog, etc...you have currency.

Money is just physical currency. Dollars are money because you can hold them in your hand. Credit card points are currency but are not money. If the credit card company starts issuing point certificates then you have money.

The value of any currency is determined by the community of people who will accept that currency, i.e. the value of a currency is a subjective, human determination based on perceived legitimacy. The words used are "faith" and/or "confidence" in the same sense as applied to politicians. If something happens to shake that perception legitimacy, to shake that faith/confidence, then the currency's value takes a hit as fewer people will accept it or more people will require more of it for the same goods and services. The U.S. dollar is like a dug-in politician while the Venezuela Bolivar lost its no-confidence vote years ago. .

I'm here through Thursday.


A good answer, but I submit that even bits can be money, though you cannot hold them in your hand. This means that credit card points WOULD be currency, although not currency in the traditional sense.

Most dollars are not paper that you can hold in your hand. Most dollars are bits in a computer. The paper stuff we use day to day serves the same purpose that silver did before the Fed. Silver is worth less than gold, gold was too valuable for day to day use, and silver was used for that purpose instead in most cases.

In gold mining towns, of course, that was completely distorted. There was more gold than silver in these towns.

When you buy something from Amazon, you do not hand them physical dollars. You give them a credit or debit account number. No paper money exchanges hands at all. It's just bits.

But you receive a product of real value for those bits. The whole transaction to pay for that product was an electronic communication. You told your bank to rearrange their bits on their computer, and rearrange the bits on the computer at the bank Amazon uses, and by that communication they are paid. That communication itself is just bits.

I submit that money does not have to be physical in nature.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2019 21:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
Into the Night wrote:
A good answer, but I submit that even bits can be money, though you cannot hold them in your hand.

Bits, messages, communications, electronic records can all be pointers to currency but they are not the currency.

Regarding the term "money" ... I don't see any problem with using any of the following, as long as it is made clear up front to avoid confusion:

Currency vs Hard Currency
Currency vs Money
Money vs Paper Money
Currency vs Paper Money

... etc. I simply go with "money" being the physical manifestation but if you don't, that's fine too. Economics models don't care what you name your currency or what you call paper money, among other things.

In all examples it's currency that is being exchanged, regardless of the form.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-05-2019 23:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A good answer, but I submit that even bits can be money, though you cannot hold them in your hand.

Bits, messages, communications, electronic records can all be pointers to currency but they are not the currency.

What about Bitcoin? Is it currency?
Do you believe that there is a dollar printed for every dollar currently in the economy?
Is gold a currency? Is a gold certificate, such as they used for money for awhile, a currency? How about silver or silver certificates?
IBdaMann wrote:
Regarding the term "money" ... I don't see any problem with using any of the following, as long as it is made clear up front to avoid confusion:

Currency vs Hard Currency
Currency vs Money
Money vs Paper Money
Currency vs Paper Money

Does money have to be paper?
IBdaMann wrote:
... etc. I simply go with "money" being the physical manifestation but if you don't, that's fine too. Economics models don't care what you name your currency or what you call paper money, among other things.

But they do. Money is a store of value. It also is a unit of account of that value. That value is quite definitely a result of the economy.
IBdaMann wrote:
In all examples it's currency that is being exchanged, regardless of the form.


You can sell credit card points to another in some cases. Doesn't that make credit card points currency? Note the bits themselves are not being exchanged. Only the message to rearrange them is being exchanged. The bits each bank holds are physical memory inside the bank's computer. Only their pattern is changed. Bitcoins operate in the same way. What is the difference between a bank's computer and a Bitcoin wallet? The only difference I see is the size of the machine the bits are stored on.

If, for example, people decide to use gold as money, does that necessarily preclude modern banking and accounting systems?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-05-2019 23:28
20-05-2019 04:17
Ken Fabian
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Whether you call the USA a republic or whatever and not 'democracy', if people vote in a government that support 'socialist' things like universal healthcare or welfare, or supposedly socialist things like treating mainstream science advice on climate seriously it will be not make the US a socialist dictatorship - or even especially socialist; most nations that have things like universal healthcare still have an economy full of people running businesses, making profits, accumulating wealth. And they do not consider what they have to be 'socialism'. Call it democracy (as I do, for shorthand), or call it consent of the governed. The great socialist disasters have all been corrupt dictatorships that suppress the rule of law - and corruption that suppresses the rule of law is not a failing that capitalism is immune from; living in corrupt right wing dictatorships is crap too.

Don't like AOC's ideas (which are aspirational and unlikely to ever be enacted as stated)? I will keep on saying it - come up with credible 'right' leaning policies and promote them. Only delusions about the climate problem being by and about socialism (and not a general urge to avoid being responsible for our own actions) prevents the conservative Right from coming up with and supporting credible alternative rather than entrenching institutionalised cheating on basic responsibility for harms arising from their activities. I would note that it has not been climate activist politics that opposes market based solutions like carbon pricing. But I can see how important it is to those here to believe the science is wrong - because the whole marxist conspiracy delusion all falls apart in the face of global warming being true.

Give the extremist 'free' marketeers what they want - low wages, no regulation, even for things where responsibility and accountability should be clear, like climate externalities that harm others, and no taxation - and demand will reduce, infrastructure will run down, employees will be less educated and more unhealthy and future business opportunities get reduced. The social downsides of poverty are a cost the rest of a society bears one way or another. A lot of civilised nations find the costs of social welfare less burdensome than the social disruption and crime of entrenched poverty.

Because global warming is real and it is going to be so economically as well as environmentally disruptive it is, as I say, entirely reasonable to call on governments to act and to engage with other nations in international agreements to act. effectively.
20-05-2019 06:35
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
it will be not make the US a socialist dictatorship
IF you look at what they are trying to do, its to destroy all the democratic and capitalist parts of the US. They want to take away our homes, our cars and our jobs and put us on a government pay where they get to dictate what we are allowed to do. Because we are totally dependent on them and they will cut us off if we do not do as they demand, they will have dictatorship in everything but name.

how long do you think it would be, before someone gets voted in as president for life, and his vice president gets the automatic vote when he dies? Or to be more precise, when SHE dies. We all know how the first "president for life" would have been if she had been elected. The restriction on term limitations would have been removed. They already started pushing for it, expecting her to become president.

Because global warming is real
yes, its real, but it isn't man made.
Edited on 20-05-2019 06:36
20-05-2019 08:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Whether you call the USA a republic or whatever and not 'democracy', if people vote in a government that support 'socialist' things like universal healthcare or welfare, or supposedly socialist things like treating mainstream science advice on climate seriously it will be not make the US a socialist dictatorship - or even especially socialist; most nations that have things like universal healthcare still have an economy full of people running businesses, making profits, accumulating wealth. And they do not consider what they have to be 'socialism'. Call it democracy (as I do, for shorthand), or call it consent of the governed. The great socialist disasters have all been corrupt dictatorships that suppress the rule of law - and corruption that suppresses the rule of law is not a failing that capitalism is immune from; living in corrupt right wing dictatorships is crap too.

Don't like AOC's ideas (which are aspirational and unlikely to ever be enacted as stated)? I will keep on saying it - come up with credible 'right' leaning policies and promote them. Only delusions about the climate problem being by and about socialism (and not a general urge to avoid being responsible for our own actions) prevents the conservative Right from coming up with and supporting credible alternative rather than entrenching institutionalised cheating on basic responsibility for harms arising from their activities. I would note that it has not been climate activist politics that opposes market based solutions like carbon pricing. But I can see how important it is to those here to believe the science is wrong - because the whole marxist conspiracy delusion all falls apart in the face of global warming being true.

Give the extremist 'free' marketeers what they want - low wages, no regulation, even for things where responsibility and accountability should be clear, like climate externalities that harm others, and no taxation - and demand will reduce, infrastructure will run down, employees will be less educated and more unhealthy and future business opportunities get reduced. The social downsides of poverty are a cost the rest of a society bears one way or another. A lot of civilised nations find the costs of social welfare less burdensome than the social disruption and crime of entrenched poverty.

Because global warming is real and it is going to be so economically as well as environmentally disruptive it is, as I say, entirely reasonable to call on governments to act and to engage with other nations in international agreements to act. effectively.

'Global warming' is a meaningless buzzword. There is no reason to agree on anything or change an economy over a meaningless buzzword.


The Parrot Killer
20-05-2019 08:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
it will be not make the US a socialist dictatorship
IF you look at what they are trying to do, its to destroy all the democratic and capitalist parts of the US. They want to take away our homes, our cars and our jobs and put us on a government pay where they get to dictate what we are allowed to do. Because we are totally dependent on them and they will cut us off if we do not do as they demand, they will have dictatorship in everything but name.

how long do you think it would be, before someone gets voted in as president for life, and his vice president gets the automatic vote when he dies? Or to be more precise, when SHE dies. We all know how the first "president for life" would have been if she had been elected. The restriction on term limitations would have been removed. They already started pushing for it, expecting her to become president.

Because global warming is real
yes, its real, but it isn't man made.


Define 'global warming'. This is a meaningless phrase. There is nothing real about a meaningless buzzword.


The Parrot Killer
20-05-2019 11:21
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(823)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Whether you call the USA a republic or whatever and not 'democracy', if people vote in a government that support 'socialist' things like universal healthcare or welfare, or supposedly socialist things like treating mainstream science advice on climate seriously it will be not make the US a socialist dictatorship - or even especially socialist; most nations that have things like universal healthcare still have an economy full of people running businesses, making profits, accumulating wealth. And they do not consider what they have to be 'socialism'. Call it democracy (as I do, for shorthand), or call it consent of the governed. The great socialist disasters have all been corrupt dictatorships that suppress the rule of law - and corruption that suppresses the rule of law is not a failing that capitalism is immune from; living in corrupt right wing dictatorships is crap too.

Don't like AOC's ideas (which are aspirational and unlikely to ever be enacted as stated)? I will keep on saying it - come up with credible 'right' leaning policies and promote them. Only delusions about the climate problem being by and about socialism (and not a general urge to avoid being responsible for our own actions) prevents the conservative Right from coming up with and supporting credible alternative rather than entrenching institutionalised cheating on basic responsibility for harms arising from their activities. I would note that it has not been climate activist politics that opposes market based solutions like carbon pricing. But I can see how important it is to those here to believe the science is wrong - because the whole marxist conspiracy delusion all falls apart in the face of global warming being true.

Give the extremist 'free' marketeers what they want - low wages, no regulation, even for things where responsibility and accountability should be clear, like climate externalities that harm others, and no taxation - and demand will reduce, infrastructure will run down, employees will be less educated and more unhealthy and future business opportunities get reduced. The social downsides of poverty are a cost the rest of a society bears one way or another. A lot of civilised nations find the costs of social welfare less burdensome than the social disruption and crime of entrenched poverty.

Because global warming is real and it is going to be so economically as well as environmentally disruptive it is, as I say, entirely reasonable to call on governments to act and to engage with other nations in international agreements to act. effectively.


Climate Change is crap, only exists on a computer simulation, a video game. Carbon based fuels have been under attack pretty much since the beginning, since they were key to industrialization, modernization of the world. Many economies are highly dependent on them, either in their production, or use. The first major attack was about pollution, air quality. Rather than stop using these fuels, we found ways to burn cleaner. Simpler, and cheaper, than converting to any of the alternative energy sources. Less impact on the economies that depend on carbon fuels. The second attack was the energy crisis, running out of fossil fuels, need to switch over to alternatives, before we run out. That didn't work out, still plenty in the ground, not likely to be depleted anytime soon. Even with much of the land over rich deposits protected or restricted. Plenty of offshore resources available as well. Now, it's the climate, and a relationship/correlation that only exists on a computer screen. Normal, natural events, are pointed out as indicators that this thing is actually happening. Unfortunately, nature doesn't cooperate with mankind. None of the computer prophecies are happening as predicted.

Each of these attacks have only served to drive up energy costs, and the price of most everything else. More controls and restrictions, but have done nothing to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Modern industries depend on them for energy, to produce all the products we want and need. Higher prices and more restrictions, mean fewer jobs. A higher cost of living, means more people needing government assistance.

Most scientists try to stay neutral, partly because they are disciplined to remain objective in their work. But mostly, this is political BS, and their funding usually depends on government grants. Doesn't matter which way they lean, politically, it's always going to be the same government, which sways left to right, every few years. Best way to win at politics, is to stay out of the game.
20-05-2019 16:24
James___
★★★★☆
(1381)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Whether you call the USA a republic or whatever and not 'democracy',
Because global warming is real and it is going to be so economically as well as environmentally disruptive it is, as I say, entirely reasonable to call on governments to act and to engage with other nations in international agreements to act. effectively.



Ken,
I am in a unique position. I can't consider just one perspective. When I basically attacked the IPCC's credibility, IBDaMann defended them. Americans are that way.
They don't know what socialism is. America's favorite trading partner is a communist country. Most Americans don't understand how we became involved with China. The War in the Pacific which started when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th 1941 was because Japan wanted the US out of Asia.
What was the problem? Japan was occupying a part of China and the US led an oil embargo against Japan to get them out of China.
Russia is occupying Ukraine but no oil embargo. Western countries are benefiting by getting cheaper energy from Russia. That's one of the sanctions. So Russia is paying Western countries for the land it wants instead of Ukraine.
The IPCC's reports can't be considered credible. They changed the way they collect data from our oceans. They changed this back to 1998 when a global warming pause started.
They did not show if the method of recording temperatures on our oceans was changed in 1998. If not, then science requires they adjust all previous readings back to the time ocean surface temperatures were being taken erroneously. They did not do this. This makes all ocean surface temperatures collected suspect to say the least.
This coincides with the global warming pause that global warming scientists reported.
https://phys.org/news/2014-09-scientists-ozone-layer-recovering.html

What do global warming scientists say?
They argue in their paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that natural climate forcings like volcanoes, El Niño, and changes in solar activity could not have been responsible for the cooling of the upper atmosphere and warming of the lower atmosphere, and they identify a clear human "fingerprint" to the warming seen over the last 30 years.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/09/vertical-human-fingerprint-found-in-stratospheric-cooling-tropospheric-warming/

If you read the article, ozone depletion started in the 1970's. The global annual temperature was stable from 1945 - 1978. Global warming coincides with stratospheric ozone depletion. The warming before 1945 was not associated with CO2. The increase in CO2 levels was minimal.

If feedback mechanisms are allowed for, then ozone depletion might've started the warming that we are experiencing. Ozone reflects UV radiation back out into space. That would warm the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) the same way the Earth absorbs solar radiation and then radiates it to warm our atmosphere.
Anyway it makes sense to me if getting the details right matters. This is where I can get into atmospheric and chemistry because it can explain how the ozone layer being depleted can set in motion other things that aren't understood.
What the IPCC has done quite well is to show a graph and then say CO2. They made it an emotional argument. And now the argument is if CO2 isn't causing warming then there is no climate change. And if CO2 is causing some warming, then there are dire predictions. And with me, it's possible that if my project works out then this is something that I'll be pursuing on my own. I'll be able to counter the IPCC's argument which basically is if you consider the frequency of solar radiation that CO2 absorbs........
Edited on 20-05-2019 16:29
20-05-2019 16:27
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. This is a meaningless phrase. There is nothing real about a meaningless buzzword.
The earth has warmed up since the little ice age.
20-05-2019 18:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. This is a meaningless phrase. There is nothing real about a meaningless buzzword.
The earth has warmed up since the little ice age.


Why is the little ice age important as a starting point? Why is not important as an ending point? Why are any other starting and ending points NOT significant?

Are you saying that the alarmists are trying to stop ice ages, even little ones?

How much did the Earth warm up? We can't even measure the temperature of the Earth today. How could anyone have measured the temperature of the Earth during the little ice age?

Are you sure the Earth even warmed up from that point to now? The 'little ice age' was a weather phenomenon noted in northern Europe...particularly what we now call the UK.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-05-2019 18:38
20-05-2019 18:57
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
It is important because that is the point the use to claim man made co2 is causing the problem. Climate change is not because of co2, but due to the melting of glaciers. The melt is not the result of the warming, it IS the warming. During the little ice age, the glaciers advanced and they have retreated since.
20-05-2019 19:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
It is important because that is the point the use to claim man made co2 is causing the problem.

I thought they tended to use the beginning of the industrial age, which occurred during the little ice age (actually because of it). The only problem of course, is that too affected primarily only the UK.
dehammer wrote:
Climate change is not because of co2, but due to the melting of glaciers.

You mean the climate of the UK? What part of the UK? There is no global climate, for there is no global weather.
dehammer wrote:
The melt is not the result of the warming, it IS the warming.

What about glaciers that are growing?
dehammer wrote:
During the little ice age, the glaciers advanced and they have retreated since.

Some have, some haven't. Some have grown since then, some haven't. No one is monitoring all the glaciers in the world. It is not possible to measure the total ice on Earth.


The Parrot Killer
20-05-2019 20:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
James___ wrote: When I basically attacked the IPCC's credibility, IBDaMann defended them.

I must have slept through that. Could you point me to when/where I did that?

I don't recall ever having lent any sort of credibility to the IPCC.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-05-2019 21:16
James___
★★★★☆
(1381)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: When I basically attacked the IPCC's credibility, IBDaMann defended them.

I must have slept through that. Could you point me to when/where I did that?

I don't recall ever having lent any sort of credibility to the IPCC.



You told me to list 5 predictions that they made. I didn't. You said that proves that I don't know what I'm talking about. Like Isn't, the 2 of you are only in here to promote your political beliefs.
I think it's funny when if people can't have what they want they create problems for other people. Talking about Americans here. But as you said IBNotDaMann, it's about YOU. Even Harvey says the same thing.
Ya'all have fun.
Edited on 20-05-2019 21:23
20-05-2019 21:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: When I basically attacked the IPCC's credibility, IBDaMann defended them.

I must have slept through that. Could you point me to when/where I did that?

I don't recall ever having lent any sort of credibility to the IPCC.



You told me to list 5 predictions that they made. I didn't. You said that proves that I don't know what I'm talking about. Like Isn't, the 2 of you are only in here to promote your political beliefs.
I think it's funny when if people can't have what they want they create problems for other people. Talking about Americans here. But as you said IBNotDaMann, it's about YOU. Even Harvey says the same thing.
Ya'all have fun.


Mathematics and theories of science are not political beliefs.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-05-2019 21:34
20-05-2019 21:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
James___ wrote: You told me to list 5 predictions that they made. I didn't.

I asked you to list five predictions as written in IPCC reports but you flat out refused.

James___ wrote: You said that proves that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Actually, you had long-since established that you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't need to prove anything about you. My point was about IPCC dishonesty but you wouldn't help me make it. I was kind of hoping you would list a few of your favorite predictions so I could discuss the weasel-wording.

James___ wrote: Like Isn't, the 2 of you are only in here to promote your political beliefs.

What political beliefs, therefore, have I promoted?

Question: Do you consider science to be a "political belief"?

James___ wrote: I think it's funny when if people can't have what they want they create problems for other people.

... like when Marxists cannot get free nice things without having to add value in some way so they dedicate their lives to making problems for the successful?

James___ wrote: Talking about Americans here. But as you said IBNotDaMann, it's about YOU. Even Harvey says the same thing.
Ya'all have fun.

Well, truth be told, it's all about my kids ... and talk about taking everything for granted! Sometimes I think Marxism was invented by adults who wanted to justify never growing up.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-05-2019 22:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It wasn't that semi-automatics could be used for hunting, it was about what sort of hunting can you do with them, that you can't with any other rifle or pistol? They basically just lower the skill level needed to hit a target, by allowing you more bullets to accomplish the task.

Specified criminal running away, are you a criminal? Or just a silly justification argument? Wouldn't be harder for you to run away from a semi-automatic?

Not calling for a ban on anything, just don't believe buying them, or owning them should be so simple, a little higher standard for those that have an actual need of them as tool, not just a cool toy.

People who carry in public, need to be tested often, reminds them it's a big responsibility, insures they practice occasionally.

School/church shooters, 10 seconds? Least 5 sitting jail, waiting for trial. Most of them take their own lives. Think the police use to help them with that, before body cameras. Boston marathon bomber is still alive, don't know why. Should have been hung publically.

I prefer the open carry, it's a better deterrent. A person considering committing a crime, has an obvious reason to think it's not such a great idea, less likely to be successful, unless he plans on dying.


The government may NOT ban the ownership of guns period. This means that you have an extremely difficult time of making any requirements about ownership such as the stupid magazine limit.

You could always claim that a fully automatic is difficult to control because it is. But Semi's are not. A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

What do you propose for limiting people that own a gun? Someone that has been convicted of a felony? They already are. Someone that has been convicted of drunk driving? They have already shown that they are a far greater danger to others behind the wheel of a car.

Setting the magazine limits or barrel length limits or the look of a gun ("OOHHH GOD THAT LOOKS LIKE AN AK - ITS A WEAPON OF WAR") will not pass a Supreme Court test.
20-05-2019 22:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

Wake, you are attempting to make sense. The people trying to ban guns are firmly rooted in an irrational fear. Acrophobes are irrationally terrified of heights. Claustrophobes are irrationally terrified of enclosed spaces. Hoplophobes are irrationally terrified of guns; they JUST WANT THEM GONE!

In the UK, a hoplophobic country, upon realizing that outlawing guns resulted in an increase in the murder rate, did not reverse the prohibition to allow self defense. Instead they just outlawed knives. Yes, they outlawed knives. Instead of repealing gun control, they simply added on "knife-control." This is what happens when policy is made by irrational people with whom one cannot reason.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-05-2019 22:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

Wake, you are attempting to make sense. The people trying to ban guns are firmly rooted in an irrational fear. Acrophobes are irrationally terrified of heights. Claustrophobes are irrationally terrified of enclosed spaces. Hoplophobes are irrationally terrified of guns; they JUST WANT THEM GONE!

In the UK, a hoplophobic country, upon realizing that outlawing guns resulted in an increase in the murder rate, did not reverse the prohibition to allow self defense. Instead they just outlawed knives. Yes, they outlawed knives. Instead of repealing gun control, they simply added on "knife-control." This is what happens when policy is made by irrational people with whom one cannot reason.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936


The problem is that there are NOT a large number of gun grabbers. So exactly why does the media intentionally make it appear that there is? What we have is an illogical and in many cases criminal media whose intentions seem to run counter to America's best interest almost all of the time now.

So the question is - exactly HOW can we force the media back on the track of reporting the real news to America rather than trying to force their opinions upon us?
20-05-2019 22:59
James___
★★★★☆
(1381)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

Wake, you are attempting to make sense. The people trying to ban guns are firmly rooted in an irrational fear. Acrophobes are irrationally terrified of heights. Claustrophobes are irrationally terrified of enclosed spaces. Hoplophobes are irrationally terrified of guns; they JUST WANT THEM GONE!

In the UK, a hoplophobic country, upon realizing that outlawing guns resulted in an increase in the murder rate, did not reverse the prohibition to allow self defense. Instead they just outlawed knives. Yes, they outlawed knives. Instead of repealing gun control, they simply added on "knife-control." This is what happens when policy is made by irrational people with whom one cannot reason.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936


The problem is that there are NOT a large number of gun grabbers. So exactly why does the media intentionally make it appear that there is? What we have is an illogical and in many cases criminal media whose intentions seem to run counter to America's best interest almost all of the time now.

So the question is - exactly HOW can we force the media back on the track of reporting the real news to America rather than trying to force their opinions upon us?



There are countries that will let you own any weapon you want. Move to one and problem solved. No one is forcing you to live here.
20-05-2019 23:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

Wake, you are attempting to make sense. The people trying to ban guns are firmly rooted in an irrational fear. Acrophobes are irrationally terrified of heights. Claustrophobes are irrationally terrified of enclosed spaces. Hoplophobes are irrationally terrified of guns; they JUST WANT THEM GONE!

In the UK, a hoplophobic country, upon realizing that outlawing guns resulted in an increase in the murder rate, did not reverse the prohibition to allow self defense. Instead they just outlawed knives. Yes, they outlawed knives. Instead of repealing gun control, they simply added on "knife-control." This is what happens when policy is made by irrational people with whom one cannot reason.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936


The problem is that there are NOT a large number of gun grabbers. So exactly why does the media intentionally make it appear that there is? What we have is an illogical and in many cases criminal media whose intentions seem to run counter to America's best interest almost all of the time now.

So the question is - exactly HOW can we force the media back on the track of reporting the real news to America rather than trying to force their opinions upon us?



There are countries that will let you own any weapon you want. Move to one and problem solved. No one is forcing you to live here.


I don't have to move ANYWHERE. I have the 2nd Amendment and you have nothing at all.

Tell us all what you think you can do against the power of the Supreme Court.
21-05-2019 00:24
James___
★★★★☆
(1381)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

Wake, you are attempting to make sense. The people trying to ban guns are firmly rooted in an irrational fear. Acrophobes are irrationally terrified of heights. Claustrophobes are irrationally terrified of enclosed spaces. Hoplophobes are irrationally terrified of guns; they JUST WANT THEM GONE!

In the UK, a hoplophobic country, upon realizing that outlawing guns resulted in an increase in the murder rate, did not reverse the prohibition to allow self defense. Instead they just outlawed knives. Yes, they outlawed knives. Instead of repealing gun control, they simply added on "knife-control." This is what happens when policy is made by irrational people with whom one cannot reason.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936


The problem is that there are NOT a large number of gun grabbers. So exactly why does the media intentionally make it appear that there is? What we have is an illogical and in many cases criminal media whose intentions seem to run counter to America's best interest almost all of the time now.

So the question is - exactly HOW can we force the media back on the track of reporting the real news to America rather than trying to force their opinions upon us?



There are countries that will let you own any weapon you want. Move to one and problem solved. No one is forcing you to live here.


I don't have to move ANYWHERE. I have the 2nd Amendment and you have nothing at all.

Tell us all what you think you can do against the power of the Supreme Court.



The 2nd Amendment allows for muskets and flintlock pistols. You don't even know why the NRA exists. It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted. The NRA doesn't serve that purpose today. It changed. And just as the NRA has changed so to can the Bill of Rights be amended. And when that happens, it will be constitutional. That's how our government works and what people like you will need to accept.
21-05-2019 01:30
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(823)
Anymore, some people take there 2nd Amendment right, to mean they're entitled to take their semiautomatic rifle out and gun down crowds of people. Magazine capacity is relative, only takes a couple of seconds to change them out. I'm not afraid of guns, nor do I expect a ban on any of them. I am afraid of the nutjobs that seem to have no trouble buying them, or finding a friend or relative, to 'borrow' from. There really is no recreation need of them, nor does the casual gun owner really need one. There are a few exceptions, and those can be addressed, but it shouldn't be simple for anyone to just walk into the local Walmart and buy one.

Anything can be used as weapon, can't ban everything. You don't even need a weapon to kill. Guns make it less labor intensive, less risky, clean and efficient. Going semiautomatic, just makes it easy to kill more people, quickly. If a high body count is the goal, a bomb would be the next choice, but that isn't something most people are as comfortable messing with, since they don't come ready to use, or in a DIY kit off Ebay. The point is that here in the US, we've been having at least one mass shooting event, every year, usually more. Some more deadly than others. Semiautomaticas are a common theme, just like in video games. I don't know what motivates the mass shooters, most don't seem to have much of a criminal, or violent history. I do know there isn't any real need for most people to own a gun, which allows them to throw out 30 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger.
21-05-2019 03:20
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
James___ wrote:It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted.
Wrong. It was so that American would be armed if a tyrant try to take over the country. Those that drafted it stated that.
21-05-2019 07:46
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Anymore, some people take there 2nd Amendment right, to mean they're entitled to take their semiautomatic rifle out and gun down crowds of people. Magazine capacity is relative, only takes a couple of seconds to change them out. I'm not afraid of guns, nor do I expect a ban on any of them. I am afraid of the nutjobs that seem to have no trouble buying them, or finding a friend or relative, to 'borrow' from. There really is no recreation need of them, nor does the casual gun owner really need one. There are a few exceptions, and those can be addressed, but it shouldn't be simple for anyone to just walk into the local Walmart and buy one.

Anything can be used as weapon, can't ban everything. You don't even need a weapon to kill. Guns make it less labor intensive, less risky, clean and efficient. Going semiautomatic, just makes it easy to kill more people, quickly. If a high body count is the goal, a bomb would be the next choice, but that isn't something most people are as comfortable messing with, since they don't come ready to use, or in a DIY kit off Ebay. The point is that here in the US, we've been having at least one mass shooting event, every year, usually more. Some more deadly than others. Semiautomaticas are a common theme, just like in video games. I don't know what motivates the mass shooters, most don't seem to have much of a criminal, or violent history. I do know there isn't any real need for most people to own a gun, which allows them to throw out 30 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger.


A few points here...

1. Tell someone who has used an AR on an armed intruder and pumped them full of lead that they didn't really "need" it. You might get a fairly stout response.

2. True, you can't make everything illegal, nor should we. If you're afraid of the nut jobs then the get armed. If guns were made illegal do you think all the thugs would turn them in?

3. Some of the best times with me and my boys are when we go down to the local tractor supply store and get some tanerite. Then we pull out the high powers, ARs, whatever.... and just blow stuff up. It is so much fun! Don't knock it till you've tried it. Then we may do some target shooting or maybe some clays. Doesn't matter. It is tons of fun and great bonding time with my kids. Oh, and you've got an itch to go breaking in our house and threatening our lives, my boys and I will defend if needed. They know their guns well. (yes, they own guns they have actually purchased with lawn mowing money) Are we just backwoods hicks? Nope. Kids are in high school and junior high, they are national honor society students involved in everything from student council to football, baseball, band, and hunting and fishing and too much shit for me to keep up with!!


I guess I really don't "need " that recreational time with my family....but would you like Uncle Samuel to tell me I can't??
Edited on 21-05-2019 07:49
21-05-2019 11:58
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(823)
GasGuzzler wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Anymore, some people take there 2nd Amendment right, to mean they're entitled to take their semiautomatic rifle out and gun down crowds of people. Magazine capacity is relative, only takes a couple of seconds to change them out. I'm not afraid of guns, nor do I expect a ban on any of them. I am afraid of the nutjobs that seem to have no trouble buying them, or finding a friend or relative, to 'borrow' from. There really is no recreation need of them, nor does the casual gun owner really need one. There are a few exceptions, and those can be addressed, but it shouldn't be simple for anyone to just walk into the local Walmart and buy one.

Anything can be used as weapon, can't ban everything. You don't even need a weapon to kill. Guns make it less labor intensive, less risky, clean and efficient. Going semiautomatic, just makes it easy to kill more people, quickly. If a high body count is the goal, a bomb would be the next choice, but that isn't something most people are as comfortable messing with, since they don't come ready to use, or in a DIY kit off Ebay. The point is that here in the US, we've been having at least one mass shooting event, every year, usually more. Some more deadly than others. Semiautomaticas are a common theme, just like in video games. I don't know what motivates the mass shooters, most don't seem to have much of a criminal, or violent history. I do know there isn't any real need for most people to own a gun, which allows them to throw out 30 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger.


A few points here...

1. Tell someone who has used an AR on an armed intruder and pumped them full of lead that they didn't really "need" it. You might get a fairly stout response.

2. True, you can't make everything illegal, nor should we. If you're afraid of the nut jobs then the get armed. If guns were made illegal do you think all the thugs would turn them in?

3. Some of the best times with me and my boys are when we go down to the local tractor supply store and get some tanerite. Then we pull out the high powers, ARs, whatever.... and just blow stuff up. It is so much fun! Don't knock it till you've tried it. Then we may do some target shooting or maybe some clays. Doesn't matter. It is tons of fun and great bonding time with my kids. Oh, and you've got an itch to go breaking in our house and threatening our lives, my boys and I will defend if needed. They know their guns well. (yes, they own guns they have actually purchased with lawn mowing money) Are we just backwoods hicks? Nope. Kids are in high school and junior high, they are national honor society students involved in everything from student council to football, baseball, band, and hunting and fishing and too much shit for me to keep up with!!


I guess I really don't "need " that recreational time with my family....but would you like Uncle Samuel to tell me I can't??


You can still do all that 'recreating', without the semiautomatic rifles. Do your kids bring their firearms to school? How many school shooting have we had in recent years? There usually isn't any forewarning, just someone starts pulling the trigger. Even if you are carrying, there is going to be a few seconds before you can acquire the target, and squeeze off a few of your own. You have to be careful, since you only want to shoot the nutjob, not a bystander. The nutjob just needs to keep shooting, doesn't care.
21-05-2019 14:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
HarveyH55 wrote:There really is no recreation need of them, nor does the casual gun owner really need one.

You lose your argument the moment you pretend to declare what other people need or don't need.

You only get to declare what you need or don't need.

So, to correct you, there is absolutely a recreational need for AR-15s to fire AR-15s recreationally. What part of that gives you difficulty?

Question: Were you thinking of outlawing sports because, technically, there is no "need" for them?

HarveyH55 wrote: There are a few exceptions, and those can be addressed, but it shouldn't be simple for anyone to just walk into the local Walmart and buy one.

To correct you, unless you plan on outlawing sports, buying one should be as simple as buying sports equipment.

HarveyH55 wrote: Anything can be used as weapon, can't ban everything.

Like baseball bats, golf clubs, free weights, ... all sorts of sports equipment. Are you eyeing any sports equipment for background checks or cooling off periods?

HarveyH55 wrote: Guns make it less labor intensive, less risky, clean and efficient.

Like baseball bats.

HarveyH55 wrote: Going semiautomatic, just makes it easy to kill more people, quickly.

Going beserk with a baseball bat does that as well.

HarveyH55 wrote: If a high body count is the goal,

If hitting a home run is the goal, a baseball bat is the best choice. If firing accurately at the range is the goal, a semiautomatic rifle is the best choice.


HarveyH55 wrote: I do know there isn't any real need for most people to own a gun,

You do not know this. You are simply projecting your hoplophobia. So, to correct you, there are millions of Americans who absolutely need their guns for recreational, hunting and self-defense purposes, which is why they have them.

HarveyH55 wrote: which allows them to throw out 30 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger.

Yes, you are definitely projecting hoplophobia. The problem is on your end.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-05-2019 16:44
James___
★★★★☆
(1381)
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted.
Wrong. It was so that American would be armed if a tyrant try to take over the country. Those that drafted it stated that.



We don't have to worry about that any more. As per your argument, people would need to be capable of over throwing the US government which is considered treasonous. We're not settlers and now Native Americans live on reservations. One thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it does not specifically state what arms a person has a right to bare. Why weren't our forefathers more explicit in what those rights are?
I mean the Bill of Rights was amended to give women the right to vote. This shows that the Bill of Rights was not written with a clear definition of who has what right. The Bill of Rights was amended because times have changed. That was Aug. 18th, 1920 and is the 19th amendment to the Bill of Rights.
As for how people use automatic weapons, this clip shows one being used for fun and games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=AwR9di_admE

What's legal;
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

Semi-automatic rifles can be made to be very close to being fully automatic. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67oxh-KpWeQ


edited to add; dehammer, the NRA was established so that Americans would know how to use firearms in case they needed to be drafted. This would be like my being in the ROTC in high school. I used to go to a police station to take indoor target practice on their range.

"The N.R.A. was founded in 1871 by a group of former Union Army officers dismayed that so many Northern soldiers, often poorly trained, had been scarcely capable of using their weapons."

http://time.com/4106381/nra-1871-history/
Edited on 21-05-2019 17:34
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Because global warming from emissions is real...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
O'Rourke releases plan to fight climate change with $5 trillion investment and net-zero emissions by 029-04-2019 18:46
"We Are in Deep Trouble": Carbon Emissions Break Record in Devastating Global Setback731-03-2019 17:14
India's carbon dioxide emissions up 5%027-03-2019 22:10
Global warming emissions hit record level in 2018, IEA reports027-03-2019 17:49
Oceans absorb almost a third of global CO2 emissions, but at what cost?220-03-2019 04:36
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact