U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2012, 02:52 PM
 
77 posts, read 93,311 times
Reputation: 242

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
It's not happening and it's not scary. It's not crazy when the facts don't add up. And I'm not talking about "facts" from people like Michael Mann, Mr. Hockey Stick Graph.

In 1986 our local meteorologist at the local TV station was big on global warming. He came to our school and talked about it and showed all these documentaries about how by 2010 the earth would flood and there would be mass hysteria. I started reading up on it and have continued to do so. All of the apocalyptic visions have never come to pass and there isn't any warming to any significant degree, and with man only responsible for 4% of CO2, not enough to change anything anyways.

What I also found with people was a basic understanding of biology. Yes if you inject CO2 into an atmosphere bare of anything else, yes you will get a greenhouse effect. However the earth is a large breathing lung where the plant matter eats CO2 through photosynthesis and as any greenhouse owner knows, adding some CO2 will get your plants to grow faster and larger.

If you examine how the earth works, it is self cleaning and regulating. It may take longer than your lifetime, but the earth is much bigger than you and many of it's cycles are longer than your lifespan.

Like I said, if people are concerned, they exhale CO2 in far greater amounts than any car. They can help save us all by holding their breath.
Wanneroo, you're just wrong. There's no way around it.

Which plants, pray tell, are going to absorb all our CO2 emissions? All the ones in the forests we're continually burning (namely the Amazon)? Or perhaps the Rocky Mountain forests here in Colorado that will be net contributors to CO2 emissions thanks to the pine beetle for many decades? There's simply not enough vegetation to provide such a sink. Around the 1960s we thought that the oceans might do the same, and that's not happening either. You can't argue with the data:

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CO2 ppm is at 40% higher than pre-industrial levels. We doubling the amount of CO2 way faster than Arrenhius' predictions because he was in an early industrial age, and by now we've dwarfed the burning of fossil fuels of his time, so within decades we'll be finished doubling the amount, whereas the initial thermodynamic calculations assumed 1000 years.

Logically it also doesn't make sense. The fuel we are burning is from plants from millions of years ago. You're basically positing that the carrying capacity of Earth for vegetation will increase many times, even without human intervention that is destroying vegetation. We may have many times the CO2, but we don't have many times the water.

Your "plan" is basically: let's just wait and you'll see, biology will make up the difference. Not very conservative, in my opinion. Conservative thought would seem to point to at least being prepared and starting to think about how to protect the trillions of dollars in coastal infrastructure we have and preparing for the effect of droughts on our food supply, not to mention water supply. I'd prefer that to crossing of fingers and hoping, though even better would be to move to the innumerable non-fossil fuel energy sources we already have the technology for (I guess that would be progressive).

As George Carlin famously said, "The earth is fine. It's the people who are $#%!@#."

 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,756 posts, read 16,499,096 times
Reputation: 9292
jacoby23 wrote:I conststly hear Republicans and their followers supporting tax cuts for the rich because they are the "job creators". I understand that many medium sized to large private companies have owners that fall into the "rich" bracket and create jobs. I am all for supporting tax cuts for these people

One way this could work is to peg tax cuts to actual job creation, where the cut is given AFTER the job has been created, with the amount of the cut being tied to the wages and benefits paid to the workers. Tax cuts for upper management pay would be calculated at a significantly lower percentage.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:33 PM
 
245 posts, read 397,315 times
Reputation: 113
I wish politicians were as creative as your average citizen. I used to work for a publicly traded company with a CEO that was awarded $20+ million in stock options after working there for less than 2 years and cutting 3,000 plus jobs. This is the scum that Republicans support and enable.

Personally what I think we really need is a 3rd political party that can take the best ideas form both existing parties and meet somewhere in the middle.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 04:52 PM
 
9,817 posts, read 19,082,538 times
Reputation: 7546
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacoby23 View Post
I conststly hear Republicans and their followers supporting tax cuts for the rich because they are the "job creators". I understand that many medium sized to large private companies have owners that fall into the "rich" bracket and create jobs. I am all for supporting tax cuts for these people.

My problem is with tax cuts for millionaire corporate executives, celebrities and people with "family money". How are these millionaires job creators? And I am talking about direct job creation...not the sales jobs these millionaires help retain by buying yachts, expensive clothing and other luxury goods.
Who cares? I used to make a nice living in Vail working for the very rich. Plenty of people benefit when the rich buy expensive real estate, planes(ever hear of Gulfstream?), eat at nice restaurants or whatever they do. Other than the Hollywood types and other "look at me" types, most real wealthy people are rather conservative and more interested in growing their business or doing business deals rather than buying flashy goods.

The people you might be thinking of are the high income/no wealth people who spend every penny they have. They look good, sound good but are all hat and no cattle. They probably pay the most in income tax anyways as they most likely do not reduce their tax burden with tax reducing investments because all their money goes out the door to live the lifestyle.

At the end of the day once you earn income, get taxed on it and then invest it, I do not get why you should be penalized with more taxes on capital gains.

Depending on your investments for your retirement and how they are set up, such as IRA's, 401Ks, pension plans, you too will also grow money that is not taxed as it grows or you will not pay taxes when taking it out or at least pay a reduced tax burden. Same when you sell a house and have a capital gain.

Everyone benefits in this society from such tax deferred or tax minimization investments.

Personally it's really none of our business. If we believe in private property rights, then what people choose to do with their money is no one's business. As long as they abide by the law, then I can't see the issue. I'm sure you don't want people up in your business questioning every purchase you make or what job you have and how much you earn.

The utopian statists know that you need class envy to destroy productivity and creation of useful goods and services, so that's why you always see obama finger wagging at successful people. Successful people need to be destroyed and cowed into submission. That's what they did in the Soviet Union. All of the successful people lost their property and were executed or sent to the gulag and as a result millions more died of starvation or in gulags. Not familiar with all of that, look it up and see how well that worked for them.

A lot of people don't understand who really pays the taxes in this country, but the reality is this:

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

The top 1% pay 37% of all federal income taxes
The top 5% pay 59% of all federal income taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of all federal income taxes
The top 25% pay 87% of all federal income taxes
The top 50% pay 98% of all federal income taxes

The bottom 50% of all people in the USA pay 2% of the entire federal income tax burden.

Who is paying their fair share? Those bottom 50% are getting a nice ride and they can hardly complain.

Of all those calling for "shared sacrifice", watch this enlightening video of these wealthy blowhards:

‘Patriotic millionaires’ demand higher taxes, but unwilling to pay up [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

Like obama, do as I say, not as I do.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 04:59 PM
 
9,817 posts, read 19,082,538 times
Reputation: 7546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
As if things coming from the far right can't get any more stupid, the GOP is putting a plank in it's platform to control porn on the internet. This is the party whose followers run their mouth about getting government off our backs and out of our lives...except for that gay marriage thing, except for that pro-choice thing, except for that drug war thing, except for that sex-trade thing, except for controlling just about everything you can think of if it violates the straight-jacket the American Taliban hope to fit everyone into....

The GOP continues to build campaigns around social issues with the intent of sucking billions of dollars out of the pockets of "social" conservatives and then give them nothing in return, as they've done for decades, so much so that the Bush white house referred to Dobson, Robertson, Perkins, et al, as "useful idiots." The recent lunatic remarks from these regressive types is reason alone to vote DEM this year....comments by Akin about rape, and a recent comment by Ryan that rape is a "method of conception."
I read that column and it has no solid fact to support their theory that Republicans are coming for your porno collection. Just a few odd comments from various people. Clearly whoever wrote that needs to go back to journalism school.

In fact "the platform" that has been adopted by the GOP is from the Ron Paul wing and that revolves around internet freedom and keeping government offline with the exception of illegal activities going on.

Plenty of us Republicans like naked women so I think you are safe. And if you are into gay polish midget porn, we don't really care about that. In fact we'd not even want to know that you are into that.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 05:39 PM
 
9,817 posts, read 19,082,538 times
Reputation: 7546
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbelvedere View Post
Wanneroo, you're just wrong. There's no way around it.

Which plants, pray tell, are going to absorb all our CO2 emissions? All the ones in the forests we're continually burning (namely the Amazon)? Or perhaps the Rocky Mountain forests here in Colorado that will be net contributors to CO2 emissions thanks to the pine beetle for many decades? There's simply not enough vegetation to provide such a sink. Around the 1960s we thought that the oceans might do the same, and that's not happening either. You can't argue with the data:

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CO2 ppm is at 40% higher than pre-industrial levels. We doubling the amount of CO2 way faster than Arrenhius' predictions because he was in an early industrial age, and by now we've dwarfed the burning of fossil fuels of his time, so within decades we'll be finished doubling the amount, whereas the initial thermodynamic calculations assumed 1000 years.

Logically it also doesn't make sense. The fuel we are burning is from plants from millions of years ago. You're basically positing that the carrying capacity of Earth for vegetation will increase many times, even without human intervention that is destroying vegetation. We may have many times the CO2, but we don't have many times the water.

Your "plan" is basically: let's just wait and you'll see, biology will make up the difference. Not very conservative, in my opinion. Conservative thought would seem to point to at least being prepared and starting to think about how to protect the trillions of dollars in coastal infrastructure we have and preparing for the effect of droughts on our food supply, not to mention water supply. I'd prefer that to crossing of fingers and hoping, though even better would be to move to the innumerable non-fossil fuel energy sources we already have the technology for (I guess that would be progressive).

As George Carlin famously said, "The earth is fine. It's the people who are $#%!@#."
So if we put into place taxation, bureaucracy and all sorts of Algore carbon credit scams, we'll save the world and control the climate? Are people really that naive to believe all of that?

What they are doing is using scare tactics to convince the bread and circuses crowd that "We've got to do something!" and that doing something involves handing over money and your freedom to the masterminds like obama.

The earth is fine. In the past 2000 years we have had periods of more CO2 in the atmosphere with no problems. So what the climate changes, humans adapt as they always have. Some days are hot, some are cold, some are sunny, some are rainy, some are windy, some are snowy, variety is the spice of life.

I manage a piece of property that is mostly forested. I have to invest a large amount of time to keep about 15% of it open ground and have to cut down hundreds of saplings and brush every year. It grows and grows and grows. I have no fear about vegetation not growing to eat all that CO2.

I'm all for better technology and cleaner burning energy creation, but it also has to be cost effective when it replaces older technology. We've come a long way and will continue to do so. The wrong thing to do would be to deindustralize the USA and make it uncompetitive in the world market.

Like I said back when I was a kid they predicted all sorts of calamity by 2000 and 2010. None of it happened. In the 1970's they believed the earth would be an ice block by now. It didn't happen.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 05:54 PM
 
20,380 posts, read 37,943,998 times
Reputation: 18194
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
....Plenty of us Republicans like naked women so I think you are safe. And if you are into gay polish midget porn, we don't really care about that. In fact we'd not even want to know that you are into that.
It was reported in the press a few years ago that Utah (i.e., Mormons) are the heaviest viewers of porn. So much for their piety and self-declared destiny to rule the nation.

Meanwhile, we've amply demonstrated the political divide in COLO. We've had a 10-15 year tsunami of big lies, fear mongering, and historical revisionism from the right, all calculated to brainwash people into thinking that only one party can solve our problems. Since Obama took office, from day one, the hate coming from the right has been unending and vicious. I voted GOP most of my life, but never again; they've become the party of bringing back the dark ages.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 06:39 PM
 
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,867 posts, read 7,120,663 times
Reputation: 1546
What's the alternative? Vote Democrat? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! I have never and will never vote democrat, for one reason: they're the party of gun control, plain and simple. If those morons would fully embrace gun ownership and rights, they'd sweep the GOP under the rug for good.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
21,305 posts, read 20,993,664 times
Reputation: 10008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
It was reported in the press a few years ago that Utah (i.e., Mormons) are the heaviest viewers of porn. So much for their piety and self-declared destiny to rule the nation.
I find this really interesting. On another forum I post on, I mentioned something about a statistic I read on www.adherents.com about Mormons being higher educated than the general public. As you probably know, that is not an LDS sponsored website and generally contains pretty accurate, objective information. It doesn't have a pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon slant, in other words. The stats given were actually for Utahns (as opposed to people from other states) and not for Mormons per se, but the assumption was made that there was a tie to the predominant religion of the state. When I posted it, though, people came down on me like you wouldn't believe. How dare I quote a statistic pertaining to Utahns and have the audacity to suggest that because Utah is 68% LDS that the statistic had any correlation whatsoever to Mormonism!?!? Silly me. I guess it's only when speaking of a negative trait that "Utah" can be said to equate to "Mormonism." When it comes to positive traits, it's wrong to make that same assumption.

And as a sideline, your stats are wrong. Utahns were the heaviest purchasers of online porn. It's impossible to buy porn from retail outlets in Utah, so the numbers, however disturbing they may be, are not entirely indicative of how much porn is actually "viewed" in Utah as opposed to other states.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 07:42 PM
 
9,817 posts, read 19,082,538 times
Reputation: 7546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
It was reported in the press a few years ago that Utah (i.e., Mormons) are the heaviest viewers of porn. So much for their piety and self-declared destiny to rule the nation.

Meanwhile, we've amply demonstrated the political divide in COLO. We've had a 10-15 year tsunami of big lies, fear mongering, and historical revisionism from the right, all calculated to brainwash people into thinking that only one party can solve our problems. Since Obama took office, from day one, the hate coming from the right has been unending and vicious. I voted GOP most of my life, but never again; they've become the party of bringing back the dark ages.
Now that's funny. When your lights go out due to obama's EPA policies that are working to shut down energy production we will see who is in the dark ages. As he announced privately 4 years ago in a recorded talk in San Francisco, he wants the coal industry to die and he is working diligently to do that. 14 power plants are going to be forced to close with more to come and nothing coming online to replace that energy. Unfortunately for us coal provides much of our electricity, especially on the Front Range in Colorado.

When you have a president that dead set on tearing down the American way of life and American success, yeah he's been called on it and he will be called on it. Never ever have I heard of him speak in a heartfelt way about the USA and individual freedoms and success. To him government is God and knows all and can do all. He's a narcissistic person who put himself and his cronies above all and again he's been called on it.

I do not personally hate the individual but I hate his policies, because I know as a student of history they never have worked and never will work.

It's not even about parties either, to me it's about right and wrong and you either believe in top down authoritarian government or individual freedom and sovereignty where the role of government is minimized in our daily lives.

I think you bend that direction because you are a ward of the state. I'm sure you fear your pension is at risk, among other things, but the reality is that if we do not get our debt and spending under control, not only will there not be any retirement for you, but none for me or our children either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top