Canuckistani

I don't think a 4 degree increase (which is on the high end) will cause extinction of 50% of the species. I wish you would link to some reliable sources for what you are talking about here, it sounds way overblown to me. I'm not blase about it, but I'm with bcsapper that it seems inevitable. We already have too many people on the planet, all of whom want to live as we do in the West. Even if not another child was born after today, greenhouse gases would continue to rise for some time. I think more like a billion or two humans will survive - maybe more since this isn't an overnight event. We will adapt. We might lose enough crop productivity that some people will starve, and some will die of disease or natural disasters. But many will also keep on living. The biggest danger to the planet is if we have a full nuclear war for the shrinking resource base. As I said, I'm not blase about people dying, I'm just not hopeful in humanity's ability to avert this either.

The great extinction that killed 95% of all species had temps that were at 100 degrees F average. It was truly a greenhouse effect gone wild. And of course our ancestors were one of the survivors. We're not facing anything on that scale. We'll have dramatic disruptions to the environment. Many people will die, but neither the earth's ecosystem nor humans will be wiped out. The last ice age didn't kill humans or the ecosystem either. You are overplaying the danger, which allows the non-believers to dismiss your claims and by extension the dangers of global warming.

Personally I think we've already exceeded our carrying capacity for humans. That doesn't mean the species ill disappear in the great die back. Unless we choose to go the nuclear war route - that would do it.

I think it was all staged. I couldn't believe the reactions of those people. I guess this is a culture where ghosts are seen as more real. I mean you would be able to tell the elevator didn't move. Would your first reaction on seeing a little kid with a doll really be one of abject horror? In Canada and the US, the pranksters would never get away with it, because they would be sued. If this wasn't all a put on.

Do you have anything to back this up? Are you saying global warming will be on the level of the great extinction 250 million years ago? I've never heard anything like this. I'm guessing you are catastrophizing, which undercuts your argument. The environment will change. Change may be too fast for us to adapt to without disruption to our society. I doubt it will even lead to the extinction of homo sapiens tho. Just might knock us back a bit, which is going to happen, global warming or no.

And yet, Norway, which has very humane prisons focused on rehabilitation has a far lower recidivism rate than Canada, and their "club Med" prison has the lowest of all. That saves way more money than going back to Victorian era prisons. Most prisoners will get out eventually, treating them like animals will just make then act like animals when they get out. I have no problem with having prisoners work for their keep, in fact it's a very good idea. That might save some money. As for the third sentence, one of the less intelligent statements I've seen on this forum. We're going to copy Saudi Arabia now, are we? Of course parole should be based on the likelihood that the prisoner is rehabilitated.

This is where there's really no point arguing. People who don't see that taking land is in every way equivalent to shooting rockets. Land and/or resources are exactly what wars are fought over ,as in this case. One side shoots crude, ineffective rockets, the other side uses high tech weaponry as a threat to continue to steal land.

And there's no reason to assume it won't be a life sentence. 25 years is just before they become eligible for parole. Recidivism among murderers is actually very low, 2 or 3 percent. But, say somebody like Paul Bernardo will never get out.

Nope, not the only reason. Also to show that the state is not on the same brutal level as the killers, but values life. It enhances all of us to show we're better than that. But I use the killing of innocents with people who don't get the idea I just expressed.

We don't get out building permits from the US, but right here in our own state.

That would be insurrection. That won't work out to well for the settlers either.

Sure, give em citizenship. But since they'll lose the land they stole, doubt too many will want to hang around.

Ignore the man behind the curtain. Ignore the man behind the curtain.

OK, if you think that really furthers your argument. I guess I should be glad you didn't call me a poopyhead.

Do you only have one eye? You have a very selective way of looking at things. Settlers don't kill Palestinians? IDF doesn't kill Palestinians to protect the settlers? What's wrong with you? Both sides are doing ugly things in an ugly battle. Israel needs to close the settlements and recognize Palestine before they can claim to be on the side of the angels.

You mean your solution to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Palestinians? If somebody "settles" in your house, would you call it ethnic cleansing if they are removed? And, if you think Israel can take over the West Bank and keep all the Palestinians within this greater Israel without a demographic timebomt blowing the "Jewish State" out of the water, you haven't been paying attention. If Israel wants a Jewish state, they need to do it with a majority of Jews, or do you see some sort of South African situation developing here?

Move them back to Israel.

You mean you need me to provide a link that shows that Jewish settlements exist and are expanding? Really? Your map showing the size of Israel is classic Lebensraum argument as well. What's the size of Israel got to do with anything. It is what it is. Jews have no more right to larger territory than the Palestinians do, and they have to make do with a lot less to begin with.

I don't agree. Bureaucracies have huge numbers of administrative staff, ie lower level positions, that would also lose their jobs.

Well, to be fair, the savings from not duplicating service would come from some people losing their jobs. But wouldn't it better to employ those people in something productive rather than just duplicating a service. Ie keep them on, but have them do necessary, rather than unnecessary, work.

I've edited your post to reflect the other half of the coin. Both sides are equally guilty of this - Israel won't recognize the right of Palestine to exist either.

A very good idea. PEI as a province is a complete joke and the others aren't much better.How can a tiny province like PEI provide the same services as real provinces? The economies of scale just don't work.

Obliterating the place because of a couple of rockets isn't a proportional response. But by all means move in ground troops and take out the enemy. I can't speak for the UN, but what does that matter, Israel doesn't follow the UN anyway.

You mean like this guy:

You see, you won't accept it. Your post about how small Israel is, is a Lebensraum argument. Israel is the size it is, doesn't matter how small. Palestine would be an even smaller country. Lichtenstein is even smaller. To argue that the Jewish Volk deserves more space is exactly the arguments that Nazi Germany made.