[talaniman]

Geez Tom, ya gotta eat until you can climb that ladder. And there has to be a ladder and not a step tool.

And Reagan and Iran/Contra are not conspiracy theories, they are just facts of history.

[paraclete]

Tom has not only self managed his account he undoubtedly has found out how to eat without working

[tomder55]

Tom has not only self managed his account he undoubtedly has found out how to eat without working

I've worked almost 60 hrs /week for over 25 years .I started working in Jr High School delivering papers on my bicycle ,and have not had a year since without working. I did a full time job while going through college ,and often in my youth did 2 jobs .

[paraclete]

I've worked almost 60 hrs /week for over 25 years .I started working in Jr High School delivering papers on my bicycle ,and have not had a year since without working. I did a full time job while going through college ,and often in my youth did 2 jobs .

and? so you were a productive member of society, what changed?

[excon]

Hello again,

I've asked this before... But, it's time to ask it again..

When I was a kid, it was pretty common to just throw your trash on the ground. Nobody thought much about it.. We thought that the land was just soooo vast, and sooooo large, that the trash we threw on the ground wouldn't matter. But, it DID. So, we started DOING something about it, and that effort continues to this day..

When I went to sea in the Navy, it was pretty common to just throw our trash off the fantail. We thought the ocean was soooo vast, and sooo large, that the trash we threw into it wouldn't matter. But, it DID. So we started DOING something about it, and those efforts continue to this day.

These days, it's pretty common to throw our trash into the air. Every day we dump tons and tons of pollutants into our atmosphere. We think it's soooo vast, and sooo big that the trash we're throwing into it won't matter. But, it DOES.

None of the above is science. It's not religion either. It's just me looking around. After our experience with our FINITE landmass, and our FINITE ocean, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that our atmosphere isn't also FINITE.

excon

[Tuttyd]

The major problem for us at the moment is the steady decrease in the ph levels of the southern oceans. Our ocean acts as a carbon sink for half of the worlds CO2.

Apparently there is only a very small movement towards acidity, but small movements are enough to cause tiny micro organisms to be affected. Obviously this has implication for our Great Barrier Reef and the ocean food chain.

So you could argue from our point of view that CO2 in the ocean is a pollutant when it come to simple organisms.

[paraclete]

tutt, silt is a pollutant too but we can dump that on the reef so why are we worrying about micrscopic changes in CO2 and ph. I still have issues with declaring a natural substance CO2 a pollutant as the US and ex has done. It is apparent that our planet has mechanisms for dealing with vast quantities of CO2 while at the same time emitting vast quantities. We should be come serious about managing methane which has a far more deadly effect on the atmosphere than CO2 and restoring the affects of deforestation. I hear the US no longer has a CO2 issue having exported its "polluting" industries to China..

This debate is very old and there is little new information, we are told the sun might be in a dormant cycle, but no one has a justification for why the scaremongering isn't backed up by hard evidence. Change in inevietable. If the citizens of the Pacific isles have to migrate now or in a hundred years, no amount of reduction in CO2 emissions will stop that now, so we need to start dealing with the problem of accommodation, not spend our time defending against the tides. destroying world economies will not stop the displacement of these and many other peoples. What might stop them is population control

[Tuttyd]

Yes, I did say

"So you could argue from out point of view that CO2 in the ocean is a pollutant when it comes to simple organisms"



Perhaps instead we can say that large amounts of CO2 when mixed with seawater decreases the PH level.This can be detrimental to simple organisms.

I guess it depends on the emphasis you want to put on the outcome.
A strong emphasis would require the word, 'pollution'. A not so strong; perhaps,'detrimental'.

Regardless, of the choice of words the outcome is still the same.

[paraclete]

When you classify CO2 as a pollutant you begin to start the wrong debate, there are many things that are detrimental to various species on this planet and in particlar the human species, should we classify ourselves as a pollutant because that is where your arguments take us? What we have to do is change human behaviour on a whole lot of levels not just one. We should start with the human activity of deforestation, a simple change, since we really don't need to remove forest to have successful agriculture. We can stop the destruction of the marine environment by removing factory fishing. We need to reverse some of our advances but we need to stop talking about CO2 pollution and put the emphasis stopping destructive behaviour particularly the destructive behaviour of multinational corporations and we know right where to start that debate

[Tuttyd]

When you classify CO2 as a pollutant you begin to start the wrong debate, there are many things that are detrimental to various species on this planet and in particlar the human species, should we classify ourselves as a pollutant because that is where your arguments take us? What we have to do is change human behaviour on a whole lot of levels not just one. We should start with the human activity of deforestation, a simple change, since we really don't need to remove forest to have successful agriculture. We can stop the destruction of the marine environment by removing factory fishing. We need to reverse some of our advances but we need to stop talking about CO2 pollution and put the emphasis stopping destructive behaviour particularly the destructive behaviour of multinational corporations and we know right where to start that debate

Hit Clete,

If you are suggesting that I am homing in on one particular aspect of a larger problem then I would say you are correct.

I also agree with your assessment in terms of where to being the debate.

[tomder55]

You should then love the drilling in the US that is converting much of our electric generation from coal to natural gas . We are reducing our' carbon footprint' that way and we are reducing our 'carbon footprint ' with reforestation and converting former agricultural land into 2nd growth forest.

[paraclete]

Tom one swallow does not a summer make as they say, yes we are all doing our bit, we have even reached the stage of mothballing a coal fired power station, but what has this cost, well I know it has cost a 150% increase in power costs in ten years, maybe even more and was that station taken out of play for lack of demand, no, it was taken out of play because of the cost of coal, which of course is a nonsense since there is no shortage of it

The legacy of this climate change nonsense is to increase the cost of production in developed countries without any overall reduction in CO2 emissions, in other words a wealth transfer to developing countries

[speechlesstx]

Ask the German people about mothballing coal fired plants.

[excon]

Hello again, clete:

If taken by itself, of course, CO2 isn't a pollutant.. But, if taken by itself, a rose in a tomato garden is a weed. If taken by itself, water in your lungs will KILL you. CO2 is good for my garden, but if it's warming the atmosphere, it's a pollutant.

But, I'm curious as to WHAT the basis is for your denial about the earth warming up. Is it religious? Is it your politics? Do you own energy company stocks?

excon

[paraclete]

let me say ex I own energy company stocks, renewable energy company stocks. As far as I can see the Earth might be warming in certain places but it is also intensely cold in others so I prefer to refer to what is happening as climate change and it has been going on long before CO2 became an issue. The fact that you don't want to grow rosehips in your tomato patch is irrevelant but the fact that much data is compromised is not. The science is not settled beyond observable change is taking place. We have a irrational idea that we can reverse the trend. You might have swallowed Gore's bulldust hook line and sinker but my research shows there are many questions to be answered

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-1...-pause/5248456

Ex this has nothing to do with religion, it might have something to do with politics as I believe the left has hijacked the debate for political ends but what I know is we are beyond the tipping point and now we need to concentrate on the fallout not the imputs

[talaniman]

The cause and effect of spewing extra stuff into the atmosphere is undeniable to life. Breaking it down to costs doesn't change that nor will economic dependency. Rather justifies the causes. Just like all the other things that justify pumping extra pollutants and digging in the dirt for dirty stuff.

Good luck stopping people from making profits, no matter the costs to humans and the global environment. That's the problem.

[paraclete]

You are right Tal the problem is the system and the means they use the cheapest foulest solutions and take as little responsibility possible. we have modified our use of coal since the problem became apparent but the environmental lobby will settle for nothing less that the destruction of our society and economic system and meanwhile the plants have no opinion

[speechlesstx]

But, I'm curious as to WHAT the basis is for your denial about the earth warming up. Is it religious? Is it your politics? Do you own energy company stocks?

I don't believe we've been denying the climate changes, it ALWAYS has and even more drastically prior to the industrial revolution.

We aren't the ones hiding the decline, fear-mongering about outbreaks of hurricanes every year that never happen, calling for population control for mostly black Africa, making ungodly investments of taxpayer money on cars that catch fire that only the rich can afford and create toxic waste problems of their own.

Tis you who should be asking yourself those questions.

[NeedKarma]

Wow, I read the article you linked to; that's the shoddiest piece of slanted writing I've read in a while - I urge everyone to have a look at it. If this is how you get your information then no wonder you are the way you are; the author does exactly what you do - he puts words in other people's mouths then lambasts them for those words the author didn't say.

[speechlesstx]

Wow, I read the article you linked to; that's the shoddiest piece of slanted writing I've read in a while

Wow, it's not an article it's a blog, and I don't care what it said other than quoting the source. What I said was spot on. But feel free to log in at the site and give that blogger a piece of your mind.