Turns out Exxon was far more evil than we knew!

In reply to MrJoshua:

Oh no, Iggy is still here.....just with a different screen name.

In reply to Enyar:

Proof of financial ability might be a good start for children....incentivize that instead of having the current "litter" incentives.

Enyar wrote: No matter what, we need to be good stewards. To me that doesn't mean you have a 2 kid mandate max, but we need to incentive/ deter good and bad behaviors as well as change social norms with what's ok.

I have honestly never met a single person that doesn't agree with this. Even redneck hillbillies in the middle of nowhere don't argue against "pollution is bad, mguay?" That is pretty straightforward.

But it needs to be met with real solutions. For instance, California's misguided car regulations are silly. Industrial business emits much greater quantities of emissions than cars do. At the same time, the environment is shared worldwide. It doesn't make a lick of difference if North America and all of Europe cut their emissions in half if China keeps doing its thing.

Enyar wrote: ....No matter what, we need to be good stewards. To me that doesn't mean you have a 2 kid mandate max, but we need to incentive/ deter good and bad behaviors as well as change social norms with what's ok.

Although a good idea in theory (practice.. well). If we did manage that, it would likely cause crazy economic problems:

.

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

-Kenneth Boulding, economist

In reply to HiTempguy:

China is out of our control and a developing nation so they can do what they want over there. We could however impose a tariff on nations that don't abide by certain environmental standards.

In reply to yamaha:

I would vote for phasing out the child tax credit or exemptions for anyone with over 3 children. You're welcome to have as many as you like, but we will only pitch in for 3 max. Adopted children would still be eligible.

In reply to aircooled:

What do you mean?

I thought this was such a diverse crowd, but evidently there are a E36 M3 ton of climate scientist on the board. I'm so glad you are here to disprove what has been widely agreed upon and proven.

I'm going to go light some tires on fire just for fun.

In reply to Datsun1500:

Citrus groves are dissappearing because of Canker, psyllids, development and it's cheaper to produce elsewhere. Some of my farmer friends (monsanto) say that they would be surprised if FL orange juice is around in 10 years.

Datsun1500 wrote: What happened to the Jacksonville Florida orange groves? Why is it now too cold to grow Oranges in Jacksonville? Global warming is all about money. Once the "science" was proven to be shaky, it became "Climate change" You can't firmly state the "science" was bad then without being willing to admit the "science" could be bad now.

You're just super, super wrong about all of this. I'm willing to debate why with you, but it would be such a monumental task from this starting point that I think you should learn how science works first.

For example, why is modern medicine different from the village healer shaking chicken bones over you 8000 years ago? If science works like opinions, how was this progress made?

I hate to say it again, but: The term changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" because most people could not grasp how global warming could cause some places to become colder under certain circumstances. One of the general theorized effects is that weather will become more extreme (heat = energy) and weather is not always warm. That said, drawing conclusions from short term observations (plus or negative), seem pretty silly at this point.

Enyar wrote: In reply to aircooled: What do you mean?

Probably not a discussion for this thread, but one of the fundamental assumptions of a fiat money based banking systems is that the system is constantly growing since it is effectively betting on future growth (creating fake money in hopes that real money will appear, sort of). Generally economies / countries grow based on population (more workers, more consumers etc).

There may be a likelihood by which economies grow with a static population but I am not sure. (not an economist thankfully)

Enyar wrote: In reply to Datsun1500: Citrus groves are dissappearing because of Canker, psyllids, development and it's cheaper to produce elsewhere. Some of my farmer friends (monsanto) say that they would be surprised if FL orange juice is around in 10 years.

Same thing happened in Southern California. "Orange" country does not have a lot of "oranges" anymore. Pretty sure there may be zero orange farms in Orange county now. This is also not helping the drought situation since a lot of farming has moved to more arid regions (using more water)

aircooled wrote: Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.   -Kenneth Boulding, economist

Except the universe is practically infinite. If Earth gets too crowded or too many resources used up, you can bet your bottom dollar someone will start to do something to make getting off this planet a reality.

You may be correct sir:

After delays, SpaceX's massive Falcon Heavy rocket set to launch in spring 2016

( It will be the world's most powerful operational rocket, capable of launching 115,000 pounds (53,000 kg) into low-Earth orbit.)

And I hope you are.

yamaha wrote: In reply to MrJoshua: Oh no, Iggy is still here.....just with a different screen name.

Yeah, the person is here, but the personality is not. I was poking at him.

HiTempguy wrote:

aircooled wrote: Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.   -Kenneth Boulding, economist

Except the universe is practically infinite. If Earth gets too crowded or too many resources used up, you can bet your bottom dollar someone will start to do something to make getting off this planet a reality.

I believe it's called culling. They don't really get off the planet so much as return to the ecosystem as fertilizer.

I like pie

Nick (Not-Stig) Comstock wrote: I like pie

I just had some yummy chocolate cake from the lunch room.

Nick (Not-Stig) Comstock wrote: I like pie

I'm surprised it took 3 pages for a pie reference.

Nobody's going to any other (habitable) planets without FTL travel. The next solar system is 4.3LY away, and it only gets worse from there. The nearest potentially habitable planet found so far is 490LY away. FTL travel breaks the laws of physics as we currently know them so it's not close at hand.

Humans don't seem to have the ability to team up and sacrifice needed to build or run a generation ship, look at how we're handling a relatively piddling climate problem. I also wonder what a generation ship's odds of surviving to the destination are, considering how many centuries it will be out there at risk of a catastrophe.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: Weren't we worried about Global Cooling back then?

Nope, just a few crackpots who got a lot of media attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

It was on the cover of time, and taught in school, but ok, keep believing it was just a few crackpots.

It was. Lots of BS gets on the cover of magazines (See: just about anything diet/health related - Dr. Oz, anyone?) and lots of wrong/outdated stuff gets taught in schools (I was taught about the "tongue map" for example, decades after it was disproven). One magazine cover plus one mention in a public school course doesn't equal mainstream science.

Wait a minute; you're poo-pooing print media while extolling the virtues of the digital alternative. And while the science may have "improved" over the decades, the quality of reporting the science has not, nor have the scientists.

Writers still don't understand the science and/or bend reports to attract eyes. Researchers are still chasing funding - now in amounts that have grown exponentially over the past few decades. If journalists and scientists were unassailable paragons of virtue maybe the world population of skeptics would drop.

oldsaw wrote: Wait a minute; you're poo-pooing print media while extolling the virtues of the digital alternative. And while the science may have "improved" over the decades, the quality of reporting the science has not, nor have the scientists.

Not at all. The medium makes no difference in content quality IMO. If anything I'm poo-pooing science reporting in mainstream media.

As for distrusting science and scientists in general, I'll leave you alone with that one.

Flynlow wrote: Everyone knows modern science has all the answers. Anyone that doesn't agree is stupid and ignorant of the TRUTH. /sarcasm

Science isn't about answers, it's about discovering which questions you need to ask next...

Enyar wrote: In reply to yamaha: I would vote for phasing out the child tax credit or exemptions for anyone with over 3 children. You're welcome to have as many as you like, but we will only pitch in for 3 max. Adopted children would still be eligible.

Other than I'd cap it at 2(perhaps a cap of 4 on adoptions) period, this is exhibit A for how a compromise could get struck.

You want to adopt 15 kids because you're good hearted, go for it, but you're paying for them.

You want to have 15 kids because you're religious, go for it, but you're paying for them.

You want to have 15 kids by 15 different baby daddies, go for it, but you're still paying for them.

*Previous three examples are something I have seen first hand just in the immediate 10mi radius from my cornfield.....