I was under the impression (and I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on TV) that we were past the tipping point as far as solving the problem with zero consequences to the planet (that the time for this sort of action was during the Reagan years). So that the only thing we could accomplish at this point would be "mitigating the damages" from the eventual fallout from melted icecaps, ozone depletion, etc. Does that ring true to any of the scientists on this board?
Isn't climate change something that just happens normally in the cycles of a planet? Is there any proof that the current changes are some sort of anomaly in our planet's life cycle? As others have pointed out, we have about 100 years of data for an area that is millions of years old. That's not a real good sample size. Beyond that we have have tree rings, soil samples, and ice cores that can provide limited information. We have fossils of sea creatures in Montana which appears to tell us the Earth was much warmer millions of years ago, and then got colder causing icecaps and receding oceans. I can drive 100 miles from here and see where the mountains here were kissed by sea water and the evidence of the receding sea levels over the next God knows how many millenniums. Earth changes constantly. There's been ice ages when it's been cold. Conversely, there've been warming periods that have chased the glaciers back. Is there any proof that the changes happening now are any different then the changes that have happened over and over again throughout our planet's history?
I look at the whole climate change thing this way; yes, it's definitely happening in the short term, but nobody has any clue what the mid to long term effects will be. I think the people that deny climate change are idiots or have agendas, but I have yet to see any solid science around if there are going to be lasting effects, over what kind of time scale, or whether it's going to be some sort of tipping point from which there is no recovery.
The last few responses pretty much cover some of my thoughts. Yes, climate on Earth is changing. Are humans directly responsible? I honestly can't tell you. It would seem as if by the increase in CO2 emissions we are at least somewhat responsible, but again, making a very aggressive correlation to a problem we have very little insight into is short-sighted to say the least. Add onto the fact people in power are trying to leverage this information for more money and power and it leaves me very skeptical about how scientists are using the information they are gathering.
Not to me. The Earth will mitigate any global "damages" in its own way at far greater levels than humans could ever impact. Remember how dinosaurs used to be all big and badass a few years back? Not even around any more. Earth still here supporting life.
That's sort of what I'm talking about. For example, the polar icecaps completely or almost completely melting would kill hundreds of millions of people yet it wouldn't eradicate all life on earth. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Does anyone recall the mattress-rape artist, Emma Sulkowicz? Wow. Brushed up on my knowledge of the case; I can honestly say it reeks to high heavens of weirdness. TL;DR, he admits he had sex with her twice, posted chat logs about her pre, during and after their sexual relationship and none of the details match, at all. Quoting http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/06/did-mattress-girl-tell-the-truth-not-very-likely/, emphasis where it's critical;
While speculation about the Sulkowicz case rubs the the wrong way - no matter what kind of speculation it is - Emily Yoffe did a very good job discussing the issues surrounding campus investigation of sexual assault. http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ult_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html My problem with the current news fad about campus sexual assault - a fad that has made its way into Canada - is that the suggestion that universities should be handling these issues reinforces the problem. If we are going to discuss "privilege" as a social issue, then the fact is that allowing university students access to a parallel and separate system of justice than non-university students is the ultimate form of privilege afforded to victims, perpetrators, and the universities themselves. It allows the victims an easier means by which to pursue retribution against their rapists; it allows rapists an easier form of punishment than would be given to them by a criminal court, and it allows the university to cement itself as an arbitrator of criminal right and wrong. The only other place in society (that I can think of right now, at least) that does this is the military, which has a parallel justice system for rather important reasons, and even in that case convictions under the military criminal justice system are actual convictions. What's lost in all the coverage is that non-university students of the same age are more likely to be victims of sexual assault, with far fewer options for recourse than university students.
Wow. Illinois District Violated Transgender Student’s Rights, U.S. Says http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/u...transgender-students-rights-us-says.html?_r=0 So, in other words....let's make sure this special snowflake's right to be a special snowflake is not impeded by forcing other people to have their own rights violated.
I really wonder how the Federal Education officials can enforce or make a call on things like individual gender rights like this? My gut instinct is that it's some BS education official that is making a call well outside of his domain, and it will get looked at and reversed by a federal court of some sort.
Not denying Ohio isn't conservative but the way the law was set up rubbed people the wrong way. The whole monopoly angle doomed it. I'm glad nick lachey and the big o are out millions of dollars. This was crony capitalism at its worst.
10 facilities with exclusive rights. Free market, guys! Disgusting that a measure favoring a handful of elites even made it onto the ballot. That should say something about the political climate. I'm stoked it was shot down. If this measure passed it would set a dangerous precedent. The fact that a state in need of cash flow like Ohio shot themselves in the foot in favor big money also says something. Edit: For fuck's sake the ballot even used the word monopoly! http://www.npr.org/2015/09/02/43695...oly-in-ohio-undercut-support-for-legalization Florida will be the last state to legalize. When it does, I want 10 acres of high potency weed, a store front to sell it, and an artisinal pizza parlor next door.
The secretary of State added the word monopoly to the ballot language. In reality it was an oligopoly that had the chance to expand in 4 years if demand was not being met. The ten sites would have rented out space to others so that they could grow their craft weed. The dispensaries would have all been independently owned. The 10 sites were not allowed to corroborate with each other. And you could grow your own at home. Because of the amount of signatures you have to gather, it takes a shit ton of money to get an issue on the ballot in Ohio. Those ten farms funded this. Without those ten sites no one would have ever seen this come to vote. I hope a better bill comes up. but someone has to fund it, which means someone has to make money on it. Hopefully someone can fund this better. it sucks, but that's how America works.
Absolutely. Illinois passed medicinal marijuana awhile back and while they didn't call it out in the legislation, government contracting of the bids made it essentially a government-mandated monopoly with the contracts being given to friends of important people. As if it's any shock in Illinois.
There's another group that's trying to get another initiative on the ballot for next year that's similar to what Colorado has set in place in regards to the more "open market" style of growing/dispensing. However; what everybody is failing to realize in all of this is that because voters DID pass issue 2 (the one that amends the constitution to basically outlaw all monopolies) it's now going to be almost impossible to get a marijuana initiative on any future ballots as it would then have to go in front of the Ohio ballot board for review and if it is passed there then gets split into two separate votes on the ballot, both of which have to pass to have the actual initiative pass. I wasn't in favor of Issue 3 in the way that it was written, but from a future referendum perspective, I don't think many people realized how bad Issue 2 was as well. The other thing worth mentioning that nobody seems to be talking about because HEY! OHIO DOESN'T WANT POT! is the fact that the state OVERWHELMINGLY pushed to basically outlaw gerrymandering in the state. It's still yet to be seen what ultimate affect this will have on the state, but if an issue like this can pass in Ohio in a non-election year, it may have further impacts across the rest of the country.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/04/us/university-california-merced-stabbings/ So there was a serial stabbing at a California University today, and the assailant was shot dead (he was the only fatality). This is insane; a stabbing spree? Man, we've gotta do something about school stabbings. Because if this happened once, it could happen again. Wasn't someone talking about making knives illegal a few pages back? Maybe that's something we should look into.
That was me. And yeah, it was an attempt to get people to understand that the problem is about the headspace, not the weapon. Too many idiots in power don't seem to want to recognize that. After all, that might offend the very people they need to vote for them next time.
This is a tired argument. It is also illogical. What argument? Since people can be killed with knives and we won't ban knives therefore getting rid of guns is pointless. Today's events you cited show the fallacy: the only person killed in this spree was the perpetrator, and how was he killed? A gun. So let's all just agree that the above argument (we won't get rid of knives etc.) is ludicrous. England I think has some people that are advocating for it, but it's a ridiculous proposition. We all need to cut steak and well, eat, in general.
Folks are actually bitching that the cops shot the assailant. Apparently that was uncalled for in their opinion. And..."Just think if he'd had a gun!" Anything to fit their agenda...