Ah, I forgot the best part. Annex I countries (the industrialized countries) will need to reduce their carbon emissions by MORE THAN 100% compared to 1990 levels by 2040.
Consider it. Consider it VERY carefully. Enjoy breathing while you're still allowed to.
Wha?
How is "let's reduce carbon emissions" equal to "the UN is going to prevent you from breathing"./boggle
Whatever you're smoking, you should stop.
Sissyl, so what evidence do you have that it is all a active conspiracy? Lets have your evidence on the table.
Cause there is a good deal of evidence that it is exactly the oppisit way around, that their is an active and on going attempt to mislead us all(though primarily the american public) about the severity of global climate change, which is being undertaken by the oil industry.
- We can follow the money being used to purchase influence and muddy the waters with intentionally misleading research.
- We can describe the tactics they are using to try and muddy the waters of understanding, we have the letter where they first described it.
- We can name the organisations acting as the fixers for the oil industry; and we can provide historic evidence of these think tanks having under taken almost identical activities for other industries, including tobacco(for whom the first developed the approach), and CFC production.
- We know the founders of these think tanks, and have on record public statements which explain their reasons for opposing regulation of industries for ecological reason(it boils down to 'dirty commies'.)
So seriously...without you providing actual evidence of some kind of conspiracy to make us all pay to breath(Seriously cannot believe you actually claimed that, such epic fail lulz), i am going to keep on thinking that the argument your putting forwards is Crazy with a capital C.
I know many people find maths to be difficult. I'll walk you through it:
Say that a country has carbon emissions of 100 units in 1990. 100% of that is 100 units. By 2040, then, that country will need to have 100-100=0 units of carbon emissions if they are to reduce their carbon emissions by 100%. But that was not what they wrote, was it? They said by MORE than 100% compared to 1990 levels. To do this, they need to actually get NEGATIVE carbon emissions in 2040. If you have any sort of idea on how that would be possible, please, do feel free to share.
I also take it you are not entirely clear on the fact that humans produce carbon dioxide when they breathe.
I know many people find maths to be difficult. I'll walk you through it:
Say that a country has carbon emissions of 100 units in 1990. 100% of that is 100 units. By 2040, then, that country will need to have 100-100=0 units of carbon emissions if they are to reduce their carbon emissions by 100%. But that was not what they wrote, was it? They said by MORE than 100% compared to 1990 levels. To do this, they need to actually get NEGATIVE carbon emissions in 2040. If you have any sort of idea on how that would be possible, please, do feel free to share.
I also take it you are not entirely clear on the fact that humans produce carbon dioxide when they breathe.
[Citation needed]
Link (to the text in the treaty) or it didn't happen.
I have no interest in digging through the text of an international treaty to find this supposed detail. Especially since it almost certainly does not exist in the form your detailing.
ZombieNeighbours: I seriously cannot believe I actually claimed they wanted to make us pay to breathe either, so there's your "epic fail lulz". Feel free to show me where I claimed it if you can.
My point was that these people don't have the slightest grasp on reality. They should not even be trusted to peel potatoes, much less write international treaties.
And then you claim that there is a conspiracy from big oil. Paranoid much? Awww, flying nazis in the Earth time? Seriously, the world is not black and white. Just because big oil behaves miserably, that does not in any way make their opposite number heroes, innocents, good, or truthful. The environmental groups have been found out with outright lies, subverting the peer review process by getting their people into the boards of dissident journals, tinkering with data, hiding data they did not like, abysmal quality control, and so on and so forth. The tactics they have used and continue to use against people who do not agree with them are awful. Oppositional voices are silenced by smear campaigns, ugly interviews cut to destroy, ridicule, and just plain old shouting.
Is it so hard to accept that the environmental lobby is just as pissy as the rest of the lobbying organizations? Take the WWF, for example, and their beautiful campaign to help the oil companies exploit Papua/New Guinea. Virgin forest, with suspected oil beneath. Oil company hires the WWF to help them provide an environmental alibi. The WWF push for getting the area declared a nature area or somesuch, meaning the indigenous tribes living there couldn't stay, and were forcibly removed. Once this was done, the oil companies moved into the nature area, and did their work, all the while claiming they had a great cooperation with the WWF.
But hey, I am Crazy for not trusting them. With a capital C.
|
Fire Fighters don't save everyone caught in a fire all the time.
True.
Some times they are too busy getting shot to save people.
Or hadn't you heard the news?
Let's take the extreme... assume that every citizen were REQUIRED to own and at all times carry an automatic weapon like an AR-15. Then we'd all be 'safe' right? Because nobody would ever snap and open up in a crowded place if they knew they'd get shot back at... except, of course, that the people who commit these shootings are generally mentally unhinged and/or suicidal.
The more guns a population has the easier it is for a nut to get hold of one and start shooting people. It is basic inevitable logic. Yet you continue to push the 'solution' of MORE guns. Sure, get enough guns out there and these mass shootings will more often end with the perpetrator getting shot by someone ELSE rather than themselves (yipeee?)... but there will be MORE mass shootings and their victims will still be just as dead.
|
I know many people find maths to be difficult. I'll walk you through it:
Say that a country has carbon emissions of 100 units in 1990. 100% of that is 100 units. By 2040, then, that country will need to have 100-100=0 units of carbon emissions if they are to reduce their carbon emissions by 100%. But that was not what they wrote, was it? They said by MORE than 100% compared to 1990 levels. To do this, they need to actually get NEGATIVE carbon emissions in 2040. If you have any sort of idea on how that would be possible, please, do feel free to share.
Three words: international emissions trading. A country that hits the reduction cap (100%, obviously) can trade off the overhead to non-industralized countries (here, we give you 5m USD and you reduce your emissions by 10%, deal?).
The goal is to get the countries that would never agree to reduce the emissions for free to get them reduced for a price.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also take it you are not entirely clear on the fact that humans produce carbon dioxide when they breathe.
Setting aside the paranoid 'science is a fairy tale' conspiracy theories...
Yes, humans exhale carbon dioxide. However, they do NOT increase the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.
How is this possible?
Because humans do not magically produce carbon dioxide from nothing. We breathe in oxygen and that is combined with carbon from food we have ingested to produce the carbon dioxide we exhale. Meanwhile, plants are out there taking in carbon dioxide, using the carbon to grow, and expelling oxygen. We then either eat the plants, or animals that have eaten the plants, and... oh look, it's a circle.
In short, we recycle. Every atom of carbon we exhale into the atmosphere came OUT of the atmosphere. Absolutely zero change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Now... digging up carbon that has been buried underground for millions of years and burning it en mass? Slightly different story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sissyl:
CITATIONS NEEDED
You can't just make stuff up and expect everyone to believe you.
And we're not even TALKING about the environmental lobby. You're trying to paint the IPCC as a lobbying group, then saying "c'mon they're a lobbying group THEY'RE ALL BAD." Can I use that same logic to prove that you're bad, since Sissyl is a lobbying group and can't be trusted?
Also, and I haven't read these phantom missives you won't provide the rest of the class, but the specific language "More than 100% compared to 1990" makes perfect mathematical sense.
Say in 1990 you're producing 100 units of carbon, and in 2012 you're producing 200. 100% of the DIFFERENCE (which is what is being looked at when you use the word COMPARE) is 100. My interpretation is that the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, ultimately, to pre-1990 levels.
In the end, though, I don't care how "miserably" one lobbying group or another acts. It's the goals I care about. You still haven't shown that there's any sort of ulterior profit motive for the IPCC, whereas for the oil industry it is intuitively obvious.
How legal is body armour in the US, anyway? I know the Batman Shooter idiot was wearing enough tactical gear that it was quite possible that, had the whole theatre been armed, he'd still have mowed his way through most of them before they got through his armour. And the North Hollywood robbers wore enough armour to make the standard police weaponry ineffective. For twenty minutes or so, if I remember right. And 650 rounds.
So unless people are going to be using rounds for penetrating armour (which I believe are illegal in many US states, 'cos cops like not dying, and I know there is a Federal ban on some kinds) then at least some of these idiots, like the Batman Shooter, will simply gear up further to kill people. And they'll do an even better job of it, since it'll be that much harder to actually stop them...so more guns could actually lead to making these guys better killers.
Yay?
Okay... try unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf.
As I understand it, this was a serious draft of what they wanted people to sign. I have tried to find the actual signed treaty, without success. It would be nice to think they wanted people to find and read it, but apparently not. You are very welcome to give me a link to what was finally signed.
Anyway:
17. Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040 by Annex I parties; sustained by short-term mitigation by Annex I Parties of more than 50 per cent by 2017; ensuring stabilization of the global temperature at a maximum of a 1 degree Celsius increase (regarding the more than 100%, this text is then repeated in paragraph 18)
75. The recognition and defense of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature, and that their (sic) will be no commodification of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose. (Regarding international emissions trading)
The link to the NRA is because it's apparently very clear that the NRA's only objectives are to promote their industry, everything else is a smokescreen. When it comes to organizations that claim to save our environment, people don't find any such link to be obvious.
I also take it you are not entirely clear on the fact that humans produce carbon dioxide when they breathe.Setting aside the paranoid 'science is a fairy tale' conspiracy theories...
Yes, humans exhale carbon dioxide. However, they do NOT increase the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.
How is this possible?
Because humans do not magically produce carbon dioxide from nothing. We breathe in oxygen and that is combined with carbon from food we have ingested to produce the carbon dioxide we exhale. Meanwhile, plants are out there taking in carbon dioxide, using the carbon to grow, and expelling oxygen. We then either eat the plants, or animals that have eaten the plants, and... oh look, it's a circle.
In short, we recycle. Every atom of carbon we exhale into the atmosphere came OUT of the atmosphere. Absolutely zero change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Now... digging up carbon that has been buried underground for millions of years and burning it en mass? Slightly different story.
Sooooo... all this about cows producing greenhouse gases via flatulence is a hoax? If you had 100 billion people eating, breathing and growing crops for food, that would mean the same amount of emissions due to human breathing etc as 0 people eating, breathing and growing crops, so long as the 100 billion people did not use carbon-emitting fuels? Isn't it possible that eating carbon and breathing it out would mean that far more of the carbon of the trophosphere would be in the airat a certain point in time? I mean, you don't measure the carbon content on the ground, you measure how much of it is in the air.
How legal is body armour in the US, anyway?
Very. Its harder to get a taser or pepperspray. There are some state restrictions (Connecticut won't let you do it over the internet or by catalog) .. which effectively means its legal since its an hour away at most.
I know the Batman Shooter idiot was wearing enough tactical gear that it was quite possible that, had the whole theatre been armed, he'd still have mowed his way through most of them before they got through his armour.
Not quite. I don't think his stuff was that good. getting shot in a bullet "proof" vest is like getting kicked by a horse. You probably won't be standing up , your ribs might be broken, but you'll probably live.
And the North Hollywood robbers wore enough armour to make the standard police weaponry ineffective. For twenty minutes or so, if I remember right. And 650 rounds.
That stuff was home made or at least home improved iirc. They're not going to be able to regulate steel at home depot and fabric from k mart.
And they'll do an even better job of it, since it'll be that much harder to actually stop them...so more guns could actually lead to making these guys better killers.
Yay?
Some cops have bigger guns to deal with that sort of things these days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have any sort of idea on how that would be possible, please, do feel free to share.
- Plant trees.
Sadly, we are talking about emissions, not net carbon balance. While trees use carbon dioxide to grow, emissions remain the same.
Columbine had an armed guard.
Good God, really? I never heard that. I wonder why the NRA didn't mention that during their exhaustive search for 10 year old British made flash games?
How many NRA spokesmen does it take to change a light bu-MORE GUNZ!!!!!
The NRA people are more involved in the reasnons why light bulbs need to be changed...
However they were safer with one there.Were they? How can you prove such a statement?
Common sense? We protect everything important with guns. Would the president be more or less safe with armed guards please? Just because they are children and not a single individual makes little difference.
Not to question your statement too harshly... but I wonder if the quality of training each classroom guard would receive quite matches that of the presidential bodyguards.
If she was just ALLOWED to have a gun these two would have NEVER even considered doing this stunt because it could have meant a threat to their health, liberty, and even their life.Thats pretty absolute right there. I bolded it in case you missed the statement you are now trying to deny you made.
I'd also point out that the Mall 'code of conduct' is not a law, they are simply asking you not to carry a weapon. They have no way of knowing whether you have one or not, so it's still your choice to carry.
They weren't stopping people at the front gate and strip searching people, so I don't see how your point stands up.
Was she a registered gun owner?
Did she normally carry, except in this instance left her gun elsewhere because of the policy? Can you provide a source?
Yeah, I got a little emotional there; yes stating an absolute like that was a mistake. That being said fear of death is a strong one, and with the stated rules, which they can deny business to those on the premise, including banning from the location permanently. So there is a strong incentive to follow the rules if one feels they are safe enough there to be disarmed, which is an obvious mistake and lie.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Common sense? We protect everything important with guns.However they were safer with one there.Were they? How can you prove such a statement?
Or locks. But I know I don't protect my important stuff with guns, so your use of 'we' was misplaced. The rest of your statement does not answer my question of how you could prove that the Columbine students were safer with an armed guard there, considering they still died.
disregard
...the constabulary!
Okay... try unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf.
As I understand it, this was a serious draft of what they wanted people to sign. I have tried to find the actual signed treaty, without success. It would be nice to think they wanted people to find and read it, but apparently not. You are very welcome to give me a link to what was finally signed.
While I am no scholar of international treaties (nor am I even a lawyer), but if I am reading this correct, we are not an Annex I country. The US would fall under the heading of Developed Countries. Our part would be to:
... reduce their greenhouse gas emissions ... 40–50% ... from 1990 levels by 2020[, and] 80-95 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050[.]
But that is if I am reading it correctly. Again, I'm not an expert in such matters.
Annex I is the industrialized part of the world.
Annex I is the industrialized part of the world.
Like I said, I'm no expert on such matters.
The head of the NRA makes about $890,000 a year, or he did as of 2004. I'd guess it has gone up since then.
The head of the IPCC makes about £45,000 a year.
Let's talk about who's in it for the money.
Rajendra Pachauri is, IIRC, the auto-industry king of India, who happened to take the reins of IPCC.
Where do they earn that money? Is it from their respective organizations or from other businesses?
Wayne LaPierre gets his salary from the NRA.
Rajendra K. Pachauri gets a salary from another organization he works for.
Where do they earn that money? Is it from their respective organizations or from other businesses?Wayne LaPierre gets his salary from the NRA.
Rajendra K. Pachauri gets a salary from another organization he works for.
There I had a look my self, and spotted a directorship at Toyota, which overlaps with some of his time at the IPPC, but nothing which constitutes him being the "auto-industry king of India".
Man, gun control, environmentalism, this is so boring.
Can we please talk about revolutionary socialism some more?
We are, goblin. Read the documents. You'll get it.
We are, goblin. Read the documents. You'll get it.
That's cute how you confuse science with socialism.
Common sense?However they were safer with one there.Were they? How can you prove such a statement?
The phrase "common sense" is meaningless. It's used by someone who doesn't want to explain their reasoning in detail, based on the assumption that the person you're talking to comes from the same perspective you do, and therefore doesn't need to have it explained. It's a rhetorical crutch often employed by those who can't satisfactorily defend their own argument.
We'd really be better off if the phrase "common sense" were permanently retired.
We protect everything important with guns.
No, we don't. I mean, at a very broad level that's perhaps half-true; the police are equipped with firearms, and they ostensibly function as a protective body for the whole of society. But if you need to resort to pointing at the police, then you've already dismantled your own argument - after all, the police already protect everyone, schools included.
We protect specific things with guns - namely, those that we feel might be readily taken advantage of by others were it not for threat of force.
Would the president be more or less safe with armed guards please?
Less safe. The President is a powerful political figure and the ability to leverage force against him without fear of denial or reprisal is an attractive prospect to a lot of people.
Just because they are children and not a single individual makes little difference.
There are vast differences between the two situations you outline, which I'm certain you would be able to come to on your own with some thought. Give it a shot. Trying to tear down your own position is always a worthwhile mental exercise.
We are, goblin. Read the documents. You'll get it.That's cute how you confuse science with socialism.
Marxism, of course, is the science of proletarian revolution.
Vive le Galt!
In for a penny, in for a pound today it seems...
While I disagree with many of the NRA's politics and am not currently a member, the sad fact is that they are the most effect gun ownership advocacy group in the United States. Those of us who are firearms owners and who find the concept that criminals will somehow decide not to break laws that would empower them excessively laughable have few other options in the face of the constant campaign to demonize firearms and firearms ownership.
I find the phrase “shall not be infringed upon” relatively straight forward and am often appalled at how freely others are willing to try to look the other way while others stomp rampantly over the Constitution. To me it is akin to requiring testing for voting rights and determining “how much negro” is in one’s ancestry to determine if they should legally be considereda person.
The belief that one can and should pass laws based on horrible outlier events is beyond stupid to me. It’s reprehensible and irresponsible in the extreme and I’m saddened and disappointed to see so much support for it here amongst others that I otherwise respect.
To address some points up thread:
1. Regarding “is the Constitution of the United States (2nd Amendment) more important to you than 26 lives?” : Unequivocally, yes. I’m relatively certain most every member of the Armed Forces who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution would agree. Does this make the deaths any less tragic? No, of course not.
2. Regarding the LA shootings: Yes, the shooters were military (or former military, I can’t recall and haven’t seen the full video in a few years as the only copy I had available to me was in VHS format) in full body armor. The police were unable to penetrate the armor they wore and ended up going to a local gun store to get a more powerful rifle. I’m somewhat surprised the owner of the store wasn’t later arrested for failure to enforce the mandatory 3 day waiting period as he was legally required.
3. Regarding the horrific movie theater tragedy in CO: If there was ever an outlier case, this is it. It was not just the high capacity magazine and body armor that made him so effective, but the tear gas. CO has fairly liberal (and I use the term in all irony, despite the accuracy of the term) gun laws which do allow their citizens to legally defend themselves. Those who may have been armed in the theater would have been hampered by the lack of visibility while he would have been able to pour fire into any area where the flashes from firearms discharges may have been visible through the gas.
4. Regarding the statement about mandatory firearms ownership not helping either: I know of several statistics which would disagree with you. I would encourage you to look into Kennesaw, GA which has mandatory gun ownership laws for all home owners.
5. To those stating that the NRA or responsible gun owners should somehow feel responsible for the acts of morons or sociopaths who happen to also own or have stolen firearms: I would equate that the loved ones of the victims of the idiots who have maimed or killed others “because role playing games made them do it” asking the role-playing game community to keep their crazies in line.
6. Regarding the observation that the security guards at a mall aren’t required to assist you: neither are the police in most instances and jurisdictions. Many cases have gone to court where the police were unwilling to assist and in all cases I’m aware of the determination was that the police are not obligated to put themselves in harm’s way.
I’m probably going to regret posting in this thread, but I'm writing primarily to reassure any other lurkers who may share my belief that they are not alone in the stance that a rapid response to a tragedy by writing policy is a wholly stupid way to allow others to run your government.
I would encourage everyone, no matter their viewpoint on the matter, to contact their congressmen and discourage them from passing laws written in haste and as a reflex to a tragedy. The post-9/11 laws and the uses they have been put to demonstrate this point far more succinctly than I would ever be able to state.
-TimD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that I don't think that's true.
I mean sometimes colonialists had to kill Indiands when they were by themselves and didn't have time to get the militia.
Other times, you needed to shoot your revolting slaves immediately. While you're out ringing the alarm, Nat Turner's murdering your family!
What is a militia? Is it an armed force of private citizens? If so, then how do they get firearms other than through private ownership?
That's why the phrase is 'overlooked'. It implies private ownership of firearms. IMHO, of course.
Go read the Militia Act of 1792.
No.
What is a militia? Is it an armed force of private citizens? If so, then how do they get firearms other than through private ownership?
That's why the phrase is 'overlooked'. It implies private ownership of firearms. IMHO, of course.
I mostly agree. Although the term used isn't simply "militia" it's "well-regulated militia" which to me, quite clearly, insinuated some government intervention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did read the Wikipedia page, though, and I forgot: you also had the right to shoot rebelling poor white trash.
I mostly agree. Although the term used isn't simply "militia" it's "well-regulated militia" which to me, quite clearly, insinuated some government intervention.What is a militia? Is it an armed force of private citizens? If so, then how do they get firearms other than through private ownership?
That's why the phrase is 'overlooked'. It implies private ownership of firearms. IMHO, of course.
True.
Although well regulated might've meant nothing more than 'still held to the same laws as un-armed citizens'. Meaning just becasue they owned a gun, didn't mean they were above the law.But that's pure conjecture on my part.