›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

the big global warming question i have

b0rderline99b0rderline99 Member Posts: 1,441
in Off-Topic Discussion

The biggest global warming question to me is simple:

why deny it?

sure it may not be happening, its not proven yet

the temperature is rising, but then again the climate is always going in cycles.  Could be either occurance

but i have always marveled that people will fight tooth and nail against global warming legislation and prevention.  Would they rather have smoggy cities, acid rain, and the adverse health affects of air pollution? The outcome of global warming prevention efforts would, for the most part, be renewable clean energy gathering systems, like wind or solar, or hydrogen and electric cars.  Fossil fuels will run out eventually, and many experts predict that this will be soon (as in between 50-200 years for oil).  The end result would only be beneficial for future stability and health.  So yes, global warming may be fake, but if it generates support for cleaner practices i am all for the ploy

and yes, money can also be an issue, but everyday emerging technologies make a green future look more and more achievable and appealing financially.  Plus i for one would value my health over my money

anyone else agree/disagree?

«1

Comments

  • DraenorDraenor Member UncommonPosts: 7,918

    $$$$$$$$$

     

    That's why.

    Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267

    I would help you all fight global warming (even though I think it's normal) if you went the free market and strong private property rights route. If you all go with more government, less property rights, and more taxes/gov programs/regulation route then i'll fight the power.



    Free market would pwn because the government would have to stop subsidizing oil and that would make everyone beg for alternative energy. Supply and Demand works.



    Strong private property rights would allow for a stronger fight against all the polluters who just dump crap into the air, water, and land which effects other properties and thus effects the people on the property.

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • EggFteggEggFtegg Member Posts: 1,141

    Generally speaking, I'd agree with you. There are some good reasons why we should be working to reduce our dependence on oil, whether or not humans are contributing to global warming.

    I can see a genuine issue though if such measures are pushed through on a global scale. Western nations have already been doing their share of poluting and have done very well from it and it seems pretty harsh to force developing nations into a position where it becomes much harder to catch up.

    Another problem some people have is that the issue is considered to be just another way for governments to give themselves more power through public fear.

    Other than that, as Draenor points out, oil is a seriously big and influencial business.

  • SimmageSimmage Member Posts: 93

    I recall a very interesting Thread about 2 months ago, although I'm sure there have been many more like it, this one sticks.

     

    Check it out http://mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/134109

     

    PS-Draenor, Tool rocks!

  • endzoendzo Member Posts: 68

    somthing about electric cars

    in norway a small factory started making electric cars they made over 200 of them for testing they sent around 100 to america and people loved it

    when big car companies herd of this new electric cars they bought the small factory in norway and all the cars that was made and stoped the production somee people in america still kept theres illeagaly i think but now i checked ebay for one and it was for £9000 dont know what that is dollars but must be alot

    i study mother vehicle repair and the things they use to reduce pollution in vehicles these days are improving some new

    ill be the first person to make a flying car that runs on water lol everyone forgeting about steam engines lol but ussing solar power is the best option for now some people tried putting solar panels on there houses

    ill do that...

     

    i will be dead in 2062.....http://www.deathclock.com/ lol so funny

  • nurglesnurgles Member Posts: 840

    I am a firm supporter of the precautionary principle.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

     

    We are part of the natural order and we have been very successful as a species. Under the precautionary priciple we should look at our actions and consider the long term concequences on our future success. If we are in doubt, on basis of evidence, that an action may be harmfull to us in the future, then we need to consider how to minimise that harm and act.

  • moostownmoostown Member CommonPosts: 377

    Maybe we do need to clean up and become more energy efficient but we do not cause global warming, it's justa  natural cycle of the earth. Anyways you know how much billions the goverment  could make from companies making and selling all these new energy efficient stuff lol....... Also where would all the crap go that we already have? Just more pollution for the earth lol.



    Most of the worlds CO2 is caused by Trees and oceans.

  • MadAceMadAce Member Posts: 2,461
    Originally posted by moostown


    Maybe we do need to clean up and become more energy efficient but we do not cause global warming, it's justa  natural cycle of the earth. Anyways you know how much billions the goverment  could make from companies making and selling all these new energy efficient stuff lol....... Also where would all the crap go that we already have? Just more pollution for the earth lol.


    Most of the worlds CO2 is caused by Trees and oceans.

    I'm stunned by the immensely well thought out argument. Especially the wave of proof was undeniable.

    image
    CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!

  • baffbaff Member Posts: 9,457

     

    Originally posted by b0rderline99


    The biggest global warming question to me is simple:
    why deny it?
    sure it may not be happening, its not proven yet
    the temperature is rising, but then again the climate is always going in cycles.  Could be either occurance
    but i have always marveled that people will fight tooth and nail against global warming legislation and prevention.  Would they rather have smoggy cities, acid rain, and the adverse health affects of air pollution? The outcome of global warming prevention efforts would, for the most part, be renewable clean energy gathering systems, like wind or solar, or hydrogen and electric cars.  Fossil fuels will run out eventually, and many experts predict that this will be soon (as in between 50-200 years for oil).  The end result would only be beneficial for future stability and health.  So yes, global warming may be fake, but if it generates support for cleaner practices i am all for the ploy
    and yes, money can also be an issue, but everyday emerging technologies make a green future look more and more achievable and appealing financially.  Plus i for one would value my health over my money
    anyone else agree/disagree?



    Similarly. Since it may very well not be happening. All the satellitte data shows that thew earth has been rapidly cooling for the last 12 years, and the period of rapid global warming from 1982-1995 has now very much ended and returned to normal paramters......

     

    So why keep pretending it's happening?

     

     

    It may be occouring, of course, terrestrial measured data suggests it still is.

    What I always marvel at is how people are so desperate to find good causes but so totally unwilling to personally pay for them. I will most certainly fight tooth and nail against legislation. Why should I have to pay for your vision of the future. If you want it, you  build it.

    Considering that you don't even care wether the threat you are wanting me to pay for exists or not, you go straight into the box with all the other cranks. No money for you. No money for any of your ideas. Not now, not ever.

    Earn your own money. Fix it yourself. And after you have you will understand why the people who have are so unwilling to part with it at the merest hint of improvement. You want my cash? LMAO.

    I don't spend my money on things that aren't guarenteed. That have no warranty. Only fools do.

     

     

    As far as I can tell, you are advocating fraud on a global scale. You are willing to lie to people or mislead about global warming, as long as the tax money you earn can be spent on other good causes that you like. Acid rain, perhaps or maybe smog. I think I agree with you that this is what my government is currently doing and plenty of other governments to. It's a new bugbear to hang taxes off. The cash cow of our decade. It's fraud. Pure and simple. You want money off people for unrelated causes they are notoriously unwilling to pay for, and so you just lie.

    It's the end of the world. Give us more money or you will all die. Doom.

     

     

     

    I object to legislation. Tooth and claw. I respect your right to make decisions about the enviroment for yourself. I respect your right and ability to take action to preserve it if you should so wish. But you don't respect mine. You think I need to be told. To be forced and financially penalised, if my view, or the depth of my concern varies from yours.

    I don't need legislation to make me do my bit for the enviroment. I'm already doing it.. Every time I get taxed, it makes it even harder for me. You are the one that isn't doing anything about it. You don't even have the courage of your convictions. If you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is, if you don't actually belive in the evils of global warming enough to pay out your own money to fix it, why do you imagine, I'm going to?

    And this is the crux of it. A load of good for nothings, who contribute nothing to this society. Who's net productivity is measured in negative figures, want us all to dig deep into our pockets and fund them on another great flight of fantasy. To allow them to be in charge and to legislate us.

    Over my dead body.

  • b0rderline99b0rderline99 Member Posts: 1,441

    Originally posted by baff


     
    Originally posted by b0rderline99


    The biggest global warming question to me is simple:
    why deny it?
    sure it may not be happening, its not proven yet
    the temperature is rising, but then again the climate is always going in cycles.  Could be either occurance
    but i have always marveled that people will fight tooth and nail against global warming legislation and prevention.  Would they rather have smoggy cities, acid rain, and the adverse health affects of air pollution? The outcome of global warming prevention efforts would, for the most part, be renewable clean energy gathering systems, like wind or solar, or hydrogen and electric cars.  Fossil fuels will run out eventually, and many experts predict that this will be soon (as in between 50-200 years for oil).  The end result would only be beneficial for future stability and health.  So yes, global warming may be fake, but if it generates support for cleaner practices i am all for the ploy
    and yes, money can also be an issue, but everyday emerging technologies make a green future look more and more achievable and appealing financially.  Plus i for one would value my health over my money
    anyone else agree/disagree?
    Similarly. Since it may very well not be happening. All the satellitte data shows that thew earth has been rapidly cooling for the last 12 years, and the period of rapid global warming from 1982-1995 has now very much ended and returned to normal paramters......

     

    So why keep pretending it's happening?

    It may be occouring, of course, terrestrial measured data suggests it still is.

    What I always marvel at is how people are so desperate to find good causes but so totally unwilling to personally pay for them. I will most certainly fight tooth and nail against legislation. Why should I have to pay for your vision of the future. If you want it, you  build it.

    Considering that you don't even care wether the threat you are wanting me to pay for exists or not, you go straight into the box with all the other cranks. No money for you. No money for any of your ideas. Not now, not ever.

    Earn your own money. Fix it yourself. And after you have you will understand why the people who have are so unwilling to part with it at the merest hint of improvement. You want my cash? LMAO.

    I don't spend my money on things that aren't guarenteed. That have no warranty. Only fools do.

     

     

    As far as I can tell, you are advocating fraud on a global scale. You are willing to lie to people or mislead about global warming, as long as the tax money you earn can be spent on other good causes that you like. Acid rain, perhaps or maybe smog. I think I agree with you that this is what my government is currently doing and pleanty of other governments to. It's a new bugbear to hang taxes off. The cash cow of our decade.

     

    I object to legislation. Tooth and claw. I respect your right to make decisions about the enviroment for yourself. I respect your right and ability to take action to preserve it if you should so wish. But you don't respect mine. You think I need to be told. To be forced and financially penalised, if my view, or the depth of my concern varies from yours.

    I don't need legislation to make me do my bit for the enviroment. I'm already doing it.. Every time I get taxed, it makes it even harder for me. You are the one that isn't doing anything about it. You don't even have the courage of your convictions. If you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is, if you don't actually belive in the evils of global warming enough to pay out your own money to fix it, why do you imagine, I'm going to?

    And this is the crux of it. A load of good for nothings, who contribute nothing to this society. Who's net productivity is measured in negative figures, want us all to dig deep into our pockets and fund them on another great flight of fantasy. To allow them to be in charge and to legislate us.

    Over my dead body.

    you missed the point, i was really just saying that everyone could benefit from cleaner air, my argument had nothing to actually do with global warming except for that i said it was one thing that the big global warming scare could lead to improvements

    any type of fossil fuel creates smog, not just CO2, smog was my big concern

  • baffbaff Member Posts: 9,457

    Originally posted by endzo


    somthing about electric cars
    in norway a small factory started making electric cars they made over 200 of them for testing they sent around 100 to america and people loved it
    when big car companies herd of this new electric cars they bought the small factory in norway and all the cars that was made and stoped the production somee people in america still kept theres illeagaly i think but now i checked ebay for one and it was for £9000 dont know what that is dollars but must be alot
    i study mother vehicle repair and the things they use to reduce pollution in vehicles these days are improving some new
    ill be the first person to make a flying car that runs on water lol everyone forgeting about steam engines lol but ussing solar power is the best option for now some people tried putting solar panels on there houses
    ill do that...
     
    i will be dead in 2062.....http://www.deathclock.com/ lol so funny
    Righto. Another day another conspiracy theory.

    There are numerous electric vehicles available to buy. There have been since the 1980's. 

    Electric vehicles have been used commercially and domestically for decades and still are. Since they look identical to other cars except for the engine, you've probably seen some and not even known. London's municipal white vans, for example, are all electric.

    From the humble milkfloat to the Sinclair C5, electric vehicles have been failing in the market place for decades now. Big companies don't shut down successful enterprises. They shut down the unsuccessful ones. If Ford thought people would buy electric cars, they would simply start making them. As would Shell.

  • baffbaff Member Posts: 9,457

     

    Originally posted by b0rderline99


     
    you missed the point, i was really just saying that everyone could benefit from cleaner air, my argument had nothing to actually do with global warming except for that i said it was one thing that the big global warming scare could lead to improvements
     
    any type of fossil fuel creates smog, not just CO2, smog was my big concern

    I think I addressed that point.

    I don't scare easily.

     

    You are happy to con people out of their money to get your way.

    You'll see none of mine. Whatever your concerns.

     

     

    I'd rather choke.

     

    Reducing pollution would be an admirable goal if it wasn't for the actual people doing it.

  • MadAceMadAce Member Posts: 2,461

    Are you insane? It's much more preferable to depend on a near depleted fuel that's hardly efficient to extract energy from and that we have to extract from one of the most politically volatile areas on the globe.

     

     

    The only reason I advocate switching to alternative energy is because energy independence is much better for the economy.

    Of course acid rain, pollution, .... are costing us billions a year in health care costs but hey, that's just people. Not the economy.

     

    I don't care about global warming. It's too late whatever we do.

     

    Tho I do want to talk to Baff in ten years. Just for shitz 'n gigglez. Unless by then, it was over his dead body. Which I would regret.

    image
    CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!

  • Cabe2323Cabe2323 Member Posts: 2,939

    Originally posted by MadAce


    Are you insane? It's much more preferable to depend on a near depleted fuel that's hardly efficient to extract energy from and that we have to extract from one of the most politically volatile areas on the globe.
     

     
    The only reason I advocate switching to alternative energy is because energy independence is much better for the economy.
    Of course acid rain, pollution, .... are costing us billions a year in health care costs but hey, that's just people. Not the economy.
     
    I don't care about global warming. It's too late whatever we do.
     
    Tho I do want to talk to Baff in ten years. Just for shitz 'n gigglez. Unless by then, it was over his dead body. Which I would regret.
    I think that we should have energy independance as well since it would improve our National Security and our personal Economy.  Forcing a change to Corn based fuel would really be a boost for this country since we can produce more of it then almost anyone else in the world. 

    But one thing to keep in mind is our country is depleting the rest of the world's Oil supplies, while keeping some untapped resources here in the US.  When the Oil is gone and we change over, everyone is going to be dependant on us for Fuel.  Especially some of these countries that aren't even considering alternatives to Oil.  We have some untapped reserves in Alaska that can be used before we really need to switch over.  

    Currently playing:
    LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)

    Looking Foward too:
    Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)

  • baffbaff Member Posts: 9,457

    Fossil fuels will still be the cheapest and most efficient source of energy in ten years time. Any change-over will of course happen organically through the power of market forces or geopolitical security,; but 10 years isn't anywhere near the right timeframe.

    Health care is 100% dependant on the economy. You will find the child mortality rate and the life expectancy in poor countries to be markedly different to the ones which you are used to.

    No economy, no advanced healthcare. In that order. The sooner you work that out, the longer you will live.

     

    Yes, pollution costs us billions. By it is a by product of industry which makes us millions of billions.

    When I have a crap, it smells. Should I stop eating? Or is eating still good?

  • baffbaff Member Posts: 9,457

    Corn based fuels.

    LMAO.

    What are you goint to eat then?

     

    The are millions of people starving; and you want to switch food production to motor fuel instaed of getting much cheaper, more efficient mineral fuels out of the ground?

     

    FYI corn based fuels are so weak they must be mixed with regular fuels to power an engine. The mix ratio is 1 bio / 20 mineral.  Bio fuel is still only 5% bio, the rest is regular mineral fuel.

    Diversity is all good in my opinion, but it's important to keep things in perspective. The long shots don't usually come in. It's not wise to overinvest in bio fuels, they aren't a miracle cure for our times. Just another little element of it. 

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267

    in the end it takes more energy to make corn fuel from what i've heard and read.

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • lomillerlomiller Member Posts: 1,810
    Originally posted by AlexAmore


    I would help you all fight global warming (even though I think it's normal) if you went the free market and strong private property rights route. If you all go with more government, less property rights, and more taxes/gov programs/regulation route then i'll fight the power.



    Free market would pwn because the government would have to stop subsidizing oil and that would make everyone beg for alternative energy. Supply and Demand works.



    Strong private property rights would allow for a stronger fight against all the polluters who just dump crap into the air, water, and land which effects other properties and thus effects the people on the property.

     

    Free market and private property rights are often mutually exclusive. You can only have a free market if you limit monopolies and therefore limit property rights.

     

    What’s even worse, is that property rights are increasingly becoming legislatively created artifacts that depend on government enforcement and restrictions.  Patents, copyrights and trademarks are in fact government enforced monopolies and are therefore at odds with a true free market system.  (they are still useful and important which is why the US constitution specifically allows for the existence of copyright)

     

    The more immediate problem with just saying “take a free market approach” is that the only real way to remove government from the picture is to assign ownership of the atmosphere to a person or corporation who then sell it’s use to others. Since there is no way to create a boundary, this is by necessity a monopoly. 

     

    That alone means it isn’t a free market approach. It’s also a huge infringement on personal rights, because now if you want to use the atmosphere for say breathing you need to pay someone for the privilege.  Hardly conducive to personal rights wouldn’t you say? What happens if someone who what’s to dump pollutants into the atmosphere is willing and able to pay more then some poor person who simply wants to breathe?  
  • moostownmoostown Member CommonPosts: 377

    Originally posted by baff


    Corn based fuels.
    LMAO.
    What are you goint to eat then?
     
    The are millions of people starving; and you want to switch food production to motor fuel instaed of getting much cheaper, more efficient mineral fuels out of the ground?
     
    FYI corn based fuels are so weak they must be mixed with regular fuels to power an engine. The mix ratio is 1 bio / 20 mineral.  Bio fuel is still only 5% bio, the rest is regular mineral fuel.
    Diversity is all good in my opinion, but it's important to keep things in perspective. The long shots don't usually come in. It's not wise to overinvest in bio fuels, they aren't a miracle cure for our times. Just another little element of it. 

    Top gear are currently growing petrol, i don't think you'd wanna eat it much.

  • lomillerlomiller Member Posts: 1,810
    Originally posted by moostown


    Maybe we do need to clean up and become more energy efficient but we do not cause global warming, it's justa  natural cycle of the earth. Anyways you know how much billions the goverment  could make from companies making and selling all these new energy efficient stuff lol....... Also where would all the crap go that we already have? Just more pollution for the earth lol.


    Most of the worlds CO2 is caused by Trees and oceans.

     

    This is incorrect. Carbon cycles through natural systems via plant growth and decay, but none of it is new. Uptake and sinking are in balance otherwise CO2 would have either disappeared or climbed to massive levels millions of years ago.  Likewise, “new” carbon must also be in equilibrium with carbon that is “permanently sunk” into carbonate rock or deep hydrocarbon deposits like coal and oil. 

     

    Since the rate at which CO2 is permanently removed from the atmosphere is relatively content, when we introduce “new” CO2 by burning fossil flues it can take centuries for the earths systems to adjust and process that new carbon. In addition, since burning fossil fuels has isotope fingerprints we can actually measure how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere & ocean comes from burning fossil fuels. 100% of the change over the last three centuries has come from human sources.  

     

    Also the whole “natural cycle” thing is BS.  Just because something happens naturally doesn’t mean we can’t explain it, but most people who want to blame “natural cycles” seem to think that means no explanation is necessary, when in fact the opposite is true. If you want to say it’s a natural change you still need to produce evidence of some natural phenomenon that is responsible, and so far every reasonable natural phenomenon has been ruled out. 
  • lomillerlomiller Member Posts: 1,810

    Originally posted by baff

     

    Similarly. Since it may very well not be happening. All the satellitte data shows that thew earth has been rapidly cooling for the last 12 years, and the period of rapid global warming from 1982-1995 has now very much ended and returned to normal paramters......
     

    Patently false. Satellite data fully supports the fact warming trend is accelerating. It also suggests a small reduction in solar output, which means the warming can't be related to increased solar activity.
     

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267
    Originally posted by lomiller 
    Free market and private property rights are often mutually exclusive. You can only have a free market if you limit monopolies and therefore limit property rights.
     
    What’s even worse, is that property rights are increasingly becoming legislatively created artifacts that depend on government enforcement and restrictions.  Patents, copyrights and trademarks are in fact government enforced monopolies and are therefore at odds with a true free market system.  (they are still useful and important which is why the US constitution specifically allows for the existence of copyright)
     
    The more immediate problem with just saying “take a free market approach” is that the only real way to remove government from the picture is to assign ownership of the atmosphere to a person or corporation who then sell it’s use to others. Since there is no way to create a boundary, this is by necessity a monopoly. 
     
    That alone means it isn’t a free market approach. It’s also a huge infringement on personal rights, because now if you want to use the atmosphere for say breathing you need to pay someone for the privilege.  Hardly conducive to personal rights wouldn’t you say? What happens if someone who what’s to dump pollutants into the atmosphere is willing and able to pay more then some poor person who simply wants to breathe?  



    In a free market, you are always allowed to create competition therefore ending a monopoly. 



    How about we assign the atmosphere to everyone? That way if pollution happens to drift into my slice of the atmosphere then I can sue. It would also encourage everyone to closely monitor their land, air and water cleanliness and where all the polluters in their region are because then they can sue if it infringed upon and that would = $$$. If your land was being polluted that would mean probably many others are being polluted on and you could educate them about what's going on and create a class action lawsuit. Suing would be easy because private property rights would be heavily enforced. The free market would help all of this by creating pollution monitors for people to use that would alert them to pollution on their property, although I think the technology is already being used, but it's used mainly for professionals.

    The Congress shall have Power . . .

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    It is important to note that the original intent of this passage was to promote science and arts. It was not to promote the maximizing of income for author and inventors. The framers of the constitution understood that information dissemination was important to the country and information should not be held hostage forever by rights holders.

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • lomillerlomiller Member Posts: 1,810
    Originally posted by AlexAmore




    In a free market, you are always allowed to create competition therefore ending a monopoly. 
     
    Not true. Because there are always going to barriers to entry many monopolies are inherently self sustaining, and those that are not are almost always subject to the vertical monopoly (using control over one sector to monopolize a related sector). This doesn’t even touch business trusts or monopolies based on land or access to a specific resource.  Few true monopolies have ever fallen to anything other then government intervention.  




    How about we assign the atmosphere to everyone? That way if pollution happens to drift into my slice of the atmosphere then I can sue. It would also encourage everyone to closely monitor their land, air and water cleanliness and where all the polluters in their region are because then they can sue if it infringed upon and that would = $$$. If your land was being polluted that would mean probably many others are being polluted on and you could educate them about what's going on and create a class action lawsuit. Suing would be easy because private property rights would be heavily enforced. The free market would help all of this by creating pollution monitors for people to use that would alert them to pollution on their property, although I think the technology is already being used, but it's used mainly for professionals.
     
    Even if you ignore the massive court costs this would incur how do you attribute blame? You’d have prove they pollution came from your neighbor and didn’t just drift over his land from someplace else, which is pretty much impossible. Also, what are you going to sue them for if they haven’t broken any laws?  If they have broken laws you still have government management of the whole situation, it’s just using a different mechanism.  Are they in turn allowed to sue you for trying to prevent them from making a profit with their own land and resources?
     
    Even if you could solve those problem the whole system would be so complex that it would never be reliable and it would be massively expensive to keep going.  Straightforward anti pollution laws would be vastly more efficient and cost effective.  
     
    The Congress shall have Power . . .
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
    It is important to note that the original intent of this passage was to promote science and arts. It was not to promote the maximizing of income for author and inventors. The framers of the constitution understood that information dissemination was important to the country and information should not be held hostage forever by rights holders.

     

  • METALDRAG0NMETALDRAG0N Member Posts: 1,680
    Originally posted by Draenor


    $$$$$$$$$
     
    That's why.

    QFT

    "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
    -- Jean Rostand

  • SimmageSimmage Member Posts: 93

    I just don't get why people don't want to help, maybe they like sitting in front of their computer too much to go recycle and try to make a differance.  I'm not the most enviromentally sound person, but I try and think that nothing could hurt our climate more than what we are doing to it every second of our lives.

    And what Satellite data did you see baff? The earth isn't cooling, and if it is, explain to me why the fuck Polar Bears are drowning in the North? Because I know for a fact, that there is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, and there ain't none right now, so...

Sign In or Register to comment.