New Mars Forums

I agree that pollution affects the environment, but affecting the environment and being the primary or sole factor altering it are very different things. It's easy to look at short-term temperature increases (we've only been recording the data for a couple centuries) and ozone irregularities and conclude that we, as the center of creation are the cause of it; but the conclusive link just isn't there. Maybe human activity is the one and only reason for the climate change we've recorded, but one could just as credibly blame it on release of CO2 from the oceans, decomposing trees, cow farts or invisible flying super-monkeys. I'm not claiming that the premise is absurd and unworthy of consideration, but merely pointing out that the evidence is circumstantial at best.

Josh, is CO2 the only insulator? Are humans the only source of it on the planet? No, so isn't more data needed before decided that humans are causing global warming and making policy on that premise? Should we just go ahead and cripple our industry based on such faulty intelligence?

Which is my whole and entire point. If temperature change has repeatedly occured in the absence of fossil fuel emissions then how can we be so certain that this time those very emissions are causing it?

I'm pleasantly surprised, Byron. As soon as I saw the thread posted I half expected a rant against Russia and the US.

I don't know why anyone even considered the Kyoto protocol in the first place, compare the smog in Beijing with any city in the US and you really have to wonder why China gets looser restrictions than we do. It seems almost like it's more about punishing the dominant nations than helping the enviroment.

Do we even know with any certainty that human activity is the primary reason for global temperature increases? I often have people telling me that temperatures have increased (by about 1 degree) over the last century, but so what? Go back 10,000 years and global temperatures have skyrocketed. From where I'm sitting they've decreased by 50 degrees since August! Oh the horror! Global climate has always fluctuated, and unless someone wants to start blaming dinosaur industry the notion that we are causing it lack credibility. Contributing maybe, but causing?
Damn T. Rex with their SUV's...

In short, I'm of the opinion that not only is the Kyoto protocol a worthless piece of extreme-leftist trash that any reasonable government would reject, but that the entire premise of man-made "global warming" is at best unsubstantiated theory.

I just borrowed a tape of it. Comments will follow I'm sure.

Sometimes it is, at least in my view. Sometimes killing people is the right and moral thing to do.

We never actually have to kill anyone. When some thug attacks you on the street you could shoot him in both knees and elbows to completely incapacitate him... Well, I don't suppose you can in California, but that's a whole other issue Following this logic, it is never moral to kill anyone. Many people subscribe to this and if it works for them, fine. But it seems to me that if executing one murderer or rapist prevents just one murder or rape, either through deterence or guaranteeing that this individual can never repeat his crime; it's worth it.

And I suppose layoffs were Bush's fault? He personally caused the economy to tank (or accelerated it, it was already starting before he took office). The fact is that there isn't a whole lot a sitting President can do to the economy either way. I know not many people believe that, but it's true. Bill Clinton didn't cause the economic boom he was credited with and Bush didn't cause the "recession" that followed. The tax cut helped in the current recovery, but many other factors are at work.

This isn't a reflex defense either, I'm actually rather annoyed with Bush and the Republican party at the moment over that damned Medicare bill. Having a sort of Gollum reaction to them. My wife has grown a bit irate over my wandering the house muttering "filthy Republicans. Tricksy. False. Betrayed us!..."

Yeah, the more I think about it the more I miss the days when it was one big enemy ready to turn us to hot glass and Republicans actually stood for smaller government. The Red Menace was not without its uses. Besides, all that defense work was good for the economy

Okay. Let's assume for a moment that it is possible to infallibly determine guilt or innocence in all cases. Any objections then? Just curious.

As for the possibility of undoing a wrong, it doesn't really hold up. If I were falsely accused of a capital crime, sent to prison for five, ten, fifteen years; then released after the error was discovered... I'd be a dangerous and very angry individual. I can only assume that I'm not the only one who would react this way. Convicting the innocent is horrible whatever the penalty, pretending that it can be undone is fantasy and overlooks the true horror of the event.

Not that capital punishment need be a mandatory sentence for anything, but the option should exist. If done periodically and publicly it is a deterrent for premeditated crimes.

Or perhaps an outline of a human hand. And to avoid any whining about the color of the hand favoring a certain race, make it green. It's for Martians, after all...

And conversely, when it belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one. Property rights are essential if we are ever to spread off-world. No one is going to put up billions of dollars to develop a shared heritage of mankind celestial body that they can never derive any profit from. No development, no colonization. And if we are never going to do anything in space why even bother studying it?

I've always liked the term "Planet Lord" myself. Yes, salute the Planet Lord. The rigid digit is acceptable.

That's what I expect to be the true Martian salute, at least as it pertains to Earth.

To address Free Spirit's points:

No, we can't. Earth's resources are finite, conservation is insufficient. Eventually we will need more, or we perish.

I understand your position regarding not taking the risks associated with population growth, space travel, nuclear energy etc. I think they are completely off base, but to each his own. But consider this hypothetical scenario...

Let's say we have two habitable planets, each essentially identical. On each planet essentially identical races of sentient beings evolve at the same time. Both civilizations develop much as ours did, until we reach roughly our current point in history.

On one world, I am in charge. Through a coup, probably   but we needed to make some changes to get back on the right track. Our recent armed conflicts have left us with a great deal of technology that we can now apply to other areas. We begin to look longingly at the stars.

On the other planet Free Spirit has become ruler, or guru or something. Probably some giant committee had a group hug and decided to preserve the planet for all the cute little fuzzy creatures that call it home. That world's advancing technology scared enough people into listening to his back-to-nature philosophy and staying on their planet, content with what they have.

Meanwhile, I have begun to launch ships into the far reaches of that solar system. I avoid Free Spirit's planet because I'm such a nice guy and wouldn't want to impose.

After a while the resources of both planets become stretched. I can get what I need from the uninhabitable rocks throughout the solar system, but Free Spirit must make do with a constantly shrinking supply of the essentials. He tries to control population growth, but not having the stomach to sterilize people or dispose of unwanted children the strain becomes unbearable. His people begin to starve, solar and wind power is woefully insufficient to supply the needed electricity. Civilization breaks down.

Meanwhile, my people have developed a problem. There's too many. We have plenty of food, fuel and whatnot but we're running out of room to live in the conditions to which we've grown accustomed. So we go to Free Spirit's planet and settle it. We find all sorts of good stuff in it that its previous occupants were loathe to mine, but we have no reservations about it. As the centuries pass we remember them fondly, not for who they were but for their misguided policies which delivered their world to us and their courtesy in leaving so much for us.

Fanciful? Yes, but hopefully it serves to illustrate a point. 

Moving on...

The real question is would it have been funded any other way? It certainly would not have happened as early as it did. Anti-matter bombs anyone?

That is one reason I'm opposed to using criminals for forced labor, the work usually has to be redone anyway.

The other, more important reason is this: If we use convicted criminals as a source of cheap labor, we create an economic incentive to convict a certain number of people. Speed limits are a case in point, local police departments are so dependant on the revenue generated from issuing tickets that they have quotas which must be met, even if the circumstances don't warrant it. Just as a set minimum number of speeding tickets must be issued, so to would a set number of people need to be convicted. It practically begs the system to become corrupt, and governments need no encouraging in that regard.

There are parts of the PATRIOT act which I have serious objections to, but overall it is not nearly the Big Brother-creating piece of legislation its opponents paint it as. I would not have voted for it, but I have to be fair to what it says. I actually read it, it mainly streamlines the processes that are already in place rather than creating anything new. It has a few points that could be intepreted in such a way as to make almost anyone a terrorist if someone really wanted to stretch it, and that is my main objection to it.

Besides, our leaders have been undoing the Bill of Rights for years.

WMD's were overblown, both by the Administration and the opposition. I wouldn't say they were a pretext, I think the instigators believed that Saddam had those weapons and they had valid reasons for this. Don't be too surprised if something turns up.

Oh, Liberalism is backward   

These comparisons to Nazi Germany really need to be kept in check. It not only makes the climate more shrill than it needs to be, but you can only cry Nazi so many times before no one listens.

As a Fascist I probably shouldn't have pointed that out ???  but as a freedom-loving American I'm obligated to.