WIP

There was nothing legitimate about James O'Keefe and his video which was fronted by Breitbart and Pyjamas Media! If you dare look here, that scary lesbian - gives a complete expose of the 'expose.' Watch if you dare!

I read "Why I Am Not A Christian" many years ago, but these days, the Dawkins interpretation of atheism and agnosticism seems to be universal. Right. Bertrand Russell was too careful a philosopher to make a sharp distinction between belief and knowledge that Dawkins's fans are using now. Russell said somewhere that he 'was an atheistically-inclined agnostic'. Previously, I mentioned some recent studies of the mind because the new picture seems to be showing that we are hopelessly biased by our pre-existing beliefs. It would be a good reason to always keep the door open a little in case we're wrong. On many issues, we have no choice other than to stake out a position, because the alternative is to be frozen in indecision; but why the so-called new atheists feel that it is important to stake out firm positions on huge, mostly undiscovered issues like 'how the universe came to be' is beyond me.

As long as this is an open forum, I'll post the contrary evidence against rightwing propaganda. Many conservatives here are at least able to tolerate seeing opposing opinions....but you are not one of them! So why don't you go to one of the thousands of American conservative forums that run a right wing echo chamber.

Congressional report clears ACORN of wrongdoing — after group forced to disband When a duo of right-wing provocateurs posing as a pimp and prostitute released selectively-edited videos trying to impugn the community activist group ACORN, both Democrats and Republicans condemned the organization. Congress then voted to cut off federal funding for the group (a decision that was later ruled unconstitutional). Following negative press and Congress' vote, ACORN effectively disbanded Apr. 1 and reorganized under new names. But a just-issued report by the Government Accountability Office that reviewed ACORN's federal funding at the behest of Congress found little grist for the mill for politicians or right-wing bloggers looking to bash the now-defunct advocacy group for the poor. The 38-page report surveyed over 31 federal agencies, probing how ACORN used federal funds and whether adequate controls on spending existed. The report found no evidence of fraud, lax oversight or misuse of federal funds. Story continues below... Nuff said! Your fascist friends are making a determined effort to destroy any and every organization that works in poor neighbourhoods. And again, I think that they are going to keep ginning up race resentment until the U.S. looks like Yugoslavia of the 90's.

Bullcrap! Just because Obama is President, that doesn't mean Blacks have control of government in the U.S. White racists who want to keep Blacks marginalized, still have too many political and economic levers to wield to make a fair comparison.

If you want negative stories on Blacks, Latinos, Arabs or homosexuals, tune in to FoxNoise; but if it's a negative story on the Republican Party, Israel, the rich, increasing corporate power, global warming, the Arms manufacturing industry etc. don't expect to find it at the voice of the new fascism! Fox doesn't send their bubble-head blondes in to cover stories of Republican voter fraud: Campaigners used pot petition to dupe voters into registering as Republicans but they've been playing this piece about the two Black Panthers in Philadelphia for the last two years, just like their fraudulent attempt to destroy ACORN. If the hard right gets their wish and destroys community organizing groups like ACORN, they shouldn't be surprised if there is a resurgence in the Black Panthers.

I think someone needs to point out here that the definitions of atheism and agnosticism that are being bandied about in atheist and humanist circles (atheism is belief-based, agnosticism is knowledge-based), are not universally accepted. If you check out some of the work of self-proclaimed agnosticism advocate Mark Vernon you can see that there are some educated observers who feel that militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, have hijacked the term agnostic for the purpose of bumping up the perceived numbers of atheists. Vernon takes his understanding of agnosticism from the man who coined the term - Thomas Huxley; pointing out that Huxley was well aware of what atheists believed and yet he still did not feel the term suitably applied to him. Another problem I have with Dawkins speak is that he uses archaic definitions and understanding of how the mind functions when he makes these distinctions between belief and knowledge. The picture of how we form beliefs and decide what is truth needs to be updated by findings in modern developmental psychology. I've read a couple of books in the past year by developmental psychologist - Bruce Hood which give us a picture of how the brain starts creating a conscious picture of the world in childhood that stays with us throughout our lives, and skews our attempts to reason our way towards knowledge; and neurologist -Robert Burton who is trying to unlock the neurochemical signals that generate a "reward sensation," which we interpret as gaining knowledge. Burton demonstrates that certainty is a feeling that varies wildly in how accurately it reflects factual evidence. So keeping these things in mind, along with the findings of other researchers, what the hell does an evangelical atheist like Dawkins mean when he says 'I believe that there is no God' but 'I don't have enough evidence to know for certain?' Dawkins may just as well stick to the belief statement and not bother claiming to also have an unbiased statement of knowledge because such things do not really exist. He should leave the term - agnostic to the people like Vernon, who say they remain undecided on whether or not there is an intelligent creator of our world.

So well put that you think it needed to be re-posted? Like we couldn't just read it the first time! You must be after sharkman's job of forum cheerleader.

They don't usually need to! They have local Republican officials to remove large numbers of voters from black neighbourhoods....that usually does the job down South.

What a surprise! The right wing propaganda source is trying to instill more fear in their white suburban audience. They go after Blacks and Latinos before going back to beating the drum for supporting foreign wars to fight the Arabs. Does Faux News ever do stories about the real security threats on American soil...right wing militias?

Now that's got to be the stupidest statement I've read in some time! If the biosphere has to adapt to climate change, as mentioned in sentence two, that in itself, makes climate change an ecological issue. Do you ever read your broad, sweeping, unsourced statements after you write them down? And that 2nd one: What !@#$^&*( evidence do you have to back up that kind of claim? That belief that no matter what kind of mess we make of the environment, everything will be okay -- is a faith position, presented by Dominionists, who insist that the Earth is an infinite, unbounded resource, in spite of the obvious evidence for the opposite -- the Earth is a finite resource that cannot accommodate every mess created by an exponentially growing human population. The economic problems from changing climate are a secondary problem. You must think that we are separate and above the plants and animals of this world -- but we're not! Loss of biodiversity will have a determining effect on how many humans this planet can support. How do these "poor consumers" benefit from those subsidies? They buy gasoline or other oil products. And yet you think the oil company selling the product, which has their product subsidized by a government, is not gaining any benefit! Tell me you don't actually believe this! Do you work for an oil company, or are you heavily invested in oil stocks? Or do you get some kind of kick by supplying propaganda free of charge to the greediest, most ruthless and dishonest businessmen in the world. If it means they get to keep money they would have otherwise payed in taxes, then it is the same damn thing! I think I am starting to understand why Waldo blows his top every time he looks at some crap that you refer to as evidence! 1. First, the generalized unverifiable statement: "there is no evidence of anyone suffering 'impacts' of climate change." 2. Then it's the counter-evidence that comes from a dubious source: "World Climate Report." And who produces this high traffic climate blog that is presented as serious, unbiased climate research? Why it's the Western Fuels Association, which supplies coal for coal-fired power stations across the western states and the mid-west....yes, we can trust a coal supplier to take an honest, unbiased look at anthropogenic climate change! This is the environment version of creationist blogs like Evolution News and Views, which tries to fool readers into thinking it is studying evolution. 3. The dodgy evidence from the dubious source: your "peer reviewed paper" doesn't even claim it is from a peer reviewed source, and it only analyzes conditions up till the year 2000. That's ten years ago buddy! A lot has changed since then. Just go outside and take a look at the weather for christs sake! And they were only analyzing one aspect of climate change -- drought activity. What about severe storm activity, extreme heat, extreme cold etc. The global infrastructure you refer to doesn't even do an adequate job in Haiti, let alone places like Western Sudan. It just doesn't sink in that the poorest quarter of the population is not benefiting from the wonders of modern technology! Blah Blah Blah and...... Put it this way -- we did without oil until about two hundred years ago, you act like it's the elixir of life. If it's a matter of survival, we do without oil again! That's what we have to do anyway. In case you weren't aware, oil is a limited resource, it does not magically replenish itself underground. The reason why our environmental situation is getting so dire, is because rather than start the transition to the inevitable post-oil age, the enormously powerful and influential oil industry is using all of its clout to double down, and extract the dirtiest and most dangerous sources of black gold. That's why there is a growing ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of bypassing high risk deep sea sources of oil, they are being developed to create ecological disasters and make the AGW problem even worse.

There's plenty of evidence mentioned in the first nine pages of this thread....I don't feel like going through it over and over again. And when the Catholic Church enters the political arena to advocate its positions, those who disagree also have rights; specifically to criticize errors and condemn their moral rules where they result in harmful consequences -- Catholic interference in programs to reduce birth rates in the Third World, would be exhibit A. They have fought access for women to have safe abortions, birth control and condom distribution....and it's not until they become a total pariah, such as declaring that African women should risk getting AIDS, rather than demand that their HIV-infected husbands wear condoms. If it wasn't for unpleasant worldwide attention on that story a year ago, they wouldn't have even changed that one. And this is why a lot of people find Catholic morality repugnant. According to the writer of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus did not follow this 'charity is optional' standpoint of modern rightwing Catholics. The Jesus in this book used charity as the litmus test to determine who was worthy of salvation: 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Whatever he does or doesn't care about, Harper is aware that right wing Dominionist Christians have an Old Testament attitude about retribution, and he wants this to be the standard, whether it leads to better or worse results.

Thanks! That's probably where I heard the 3% figure. Math is not my specialty, so I get mixed up on the difference between mean annual increase, and a figure measuring the acceleration in the rate of increase: The sharp acceleration in CO2 emissions since 2000 to more than a 3% increase per year (more than 2 ppm per year) from 1.1% per year during the 1990s is attributable to the lapse of formerly declining trends in carbon intensity of both developing and developed nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas Like I said previously, anyone who was honestly trying to find the truth would not consider this more important than alarming fact that CO2 rates are rising at an accelerating pace. This is similar to the nobs who think that three unpleasant emails at the CRU means that global warming is a hoax.

So, economy trumps ecology on your list! According to your logic, if a robber points a gun at you and says:"your money or your life," you say "I want my money," and get your brains blown out! That's what you are advocating on the global scale with this greedy attitude that the economy must be our highest concern! And that makes it okay? The large multinational oil companies benefit from these subsidies also. BP's no.1 source of income is not in the Gulf of Mexico, or in the Middle East. It's in Russia, which provides a quarter of BP's oil...and that doesn't include their stake in Russian natural gas developments. Russian consumer subsidies are going directly into BP's pockets. Same thing goes for the others who are providing cheap gas. The greedy bastards at the Financial Times restrict the original article to subscribers. The bloggers who publish excerpts from the IEA Report do not provide the full list of 37 large, developing nations. I'd like to see who else is on there. Do you just repeat the same things over and over regardless of evidence? Here it is again from yesterday's post. These are the direct subsidies: For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with: * Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free * Research-and-development programs at low or no cost * Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead * Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions * Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire * Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods ....and all of the indirect subsidies: * Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth) * The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve * Construction and protection of the nation's highway system * Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry? * Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below) And even I can think of one major item overlooked on that list -- U.S. farm bills that subsidize factory farms and huge corn and soybean operations, are indirect subsidies of the oil industry, since the oil-based fertilizers (which make it all possible) have to be purchased by the growers.....so much for non-existent subsidies! Oil companies don't hire lobbyists and make large campaign donations for nothing. Someone already pointed out several pages ago how stupid this reasoning is, since the coming adaptation will mean mass migrations from overpopulated equatorial regions of the world, which are suffering the greatest impacts of climate change at the moment.....which is a major reason why the CIA has added climate change to its list of threats to national security. Apparently they don't trust the soothing words of the so called skeptics either! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495 Got anything in the way of evidence to back that up with? Here in Canada, or most other developed nations, where poverty means at least having enough for a marginal existence, it's worth noting that almost one billion people in the world live on less than a dollar a day, and 80% of the world's population have to make it on less than $10 per day. Over 9 million people die each year because of hunger and malnutrition; and 5 million of them are children under 5 years. Another shocking stat: In 2005, the wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats The prevailing economic system of disaster capitalism, which dominates most of the world, has improved the lives of many people, but many others, like that poorest 20% are still scratching for enough to eat, and dealing with sickness on an almost daily basis because of having dirty, contaminated drinking water. Far from "almost every person" being better off than 4 centuries ago, a large chunk of the world is likely worse off. And they likely don't give a rat's ass about the concerns of the wealthiest 20% who fear losing cheap and dirty energy supplies! Many farmers (my father would have been one if he were still alive) could tell you that specialization, especially stock-raising of animals, did nothing to improve farming. The drive towards stockraising and specialization of crops came from the meat processors and food wholesalers who wanted fewer, larger suppliers for their products, rather than dealing with a bunch of small farmers who had a few cows, a few pigs and chickens etc. They wanted agriculture set up in a manner that benefited their operations. Considering that specialized agriculture is highly oil dependent...it is the source of 18% of the world's greenhouse gas production.... it is certainly not cheap when all of the costs are factored in. According to the source above, they get exceptionally large write-offs from CCA's, although they are hopefully not as insane as the oil development subsidies offered during the 70's. The worst example was Canada's 130% CCA offered back then, which made drilling dry wells profitable. Back then, Dome Petroleum was turning profits even though they didn't find a drop of oil. Also, it's stupid to compare the hotdog vendor, or even the smaller corporation with the oil company, since the rewards are going to go to the biggest. Of the ten largest and most profitable corporations in the world, Walmart, Toyota and ING Bank are the only non-oil companies on the list. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/full_list/ That should tell you something about the power and influence of this industry. Tobacco companies didn't want annoying lung cancer reports to cut in to their business, and likewise, the oil companies don't want an irritant like wrecking the environment, to get in the way of making money. You ought to read that article! Biodiversity does not make a comeback after an extinction until the source of the extinction is removed. Either we become a species that works in harmony with our environment, or we go extinct so that other life can make a comeback. Yeah, nothing to worry about....except for a collapse in North American food production. Yeah, one out of 14,000 isn't bad...even if it is already polluting every Gulf state and killing off an unknown amount of sea creatures in the Gulf. The reason we don't know is because government lackeys of the oil companies, including the Coast Guard, won't allow an investigation of the extent of the damage so far. If one blown wellhead can do this much damage so far, then that is still one too many, and drilling deep underwater is too risky to continue -- shut down the rest of them, including the ones off our shores! Finally, there are way more than 14,000 wells in the Gulf. You are likely only counting the active ones. It seems the old wells that have been abandoned as far back as the 1940's, may be leaking, and no one is checking: More than 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells lurk in the hard rock beneath the Gulf of Mexico, an environmental minefield that has been ignored for decades. No one - not industry, not government - is checking to see if they are leaking, an Associated Press investigation shows. The oldest of these wells were abandoned in the late 1940s, raising the prospect that many deteriorating sealing jobs are already failing. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/211720-27-000-Abandoned-Gulf-Oil-Wells-May-Be-Leaking

This is why I think that consequences should be the standard for determining laws and penalties. We've known for four decades that the War on Drugs is a sham, and that drug addiction should be handled in the same way that alcohol addiction is treated. Instead, we got prohibition, and the surge in organized crime, expanded police powers, and prisons full of drug addicts....all because nobody had the courage to weigh the consequences of prohibition vs. legalization and treating addiction as a health issue.

That's not the question! Thanks for deliberately misreading or misinterpreting. Your previous statement conflated church attendance and praying with conservative Christian political viewpoints, and my point...which I guess flew right over your head, is that they are not one and the same thing! And we have already discussed enough evidence that the rightwing, Ayn Randian type of Christianity is wafting over the border from the U.S.. If you want to keep your hands over your eyes and ignore it, that's your choice! But the evidence that our evangelical prime minister and his government are trying to tweak the system to favour this kind of religion has already been proven. The biggest problem with the Catholic Church is that it is a feudal despotic regime that is run by the Vatican. It's not just in the U.S. where bishops have threatened politicians who do not support a ban on abortion; they have used this threat against Liberals like Chretien and Paul Martin, and in many other predominantly Catholic countries like Spain, Italy and Portugal. And yet in all of these cases, I would be willing to bet that no priest or bishop threatened denying sacraments to a right wing politician who cut welfare, unemployment insurance, or other social benefits. In other words, the Pope and his Bishop's proclamations of their concerns for the poor are nothing more than lip service.....they are focusing their attention on perceived sexual vices, just like the right wing churches. U.S. Catholic leaders are prominent among the religious right -- look at the five conservatives on the Supreme Court for example. How much do Roberts, Scalia and Alito care about the poor and homeless? Not a whole lot based on their rulings so far. I want to focus on that point because demanding punishment for criminals may be a fundamentally human reaction, but retribution is not supposed to be the proper Christian response. That is supposed to be the 'eye for an eye' method of exacting punishment taken from the Old Testament. I have never met very many Christians who gave the implications of the Golden Rule much serious thought. But what I really want to know is why do conservatives, like your buddy Harper, insist on applying retributive justice to non-violent offenders? Odds are that most of the inmates in new prisons that Harper wants to build will there on drug offenses...what kind of Christian values is that supposed to represent?

You have continued to post claims that you can't back up with evidence, and you do not address the fact that we have helped to raise CO2 to a level that has never been experienced in human history. Still, we are just supposed to take your word for it that no harm will come as the growing human population increases its rate of carbon production with no clear end in sight....except when civilization hits the wall.

Ever hear of the concept of 'erring on the side of caution'. Right now, the International Energy Agency estimates that global subsidies to oil, coal and natural gas industries, tops 550 billion dollars per year! Imagine if that money was taken away from the energy giants and their lobbyists, and dedicated to clean sources of energy. Meeting carbon targets would be easy if carbon sources were taxed, instead of being subsidized. The most economically damaging policies are the ones funded by oil, gas and coal, that are going after tar sands and deep sea oil deposits. There is evidence that carbon dioxide absorbs radiant energy....it's an experiment that can be done in any grade 9 science class. On the planetary scale, warming the Earth to levels that we have never dealt with before is crazed indifference to likely consequences....sort of like drinking a case of beer and seeing if you can drive home without getting in an accident and killing someone. And how long have we been in the fossil fuel age? Fossil fuels are stored, concentrated solar energy. Right from the time we started burning coal and oil, it was a temporary source of cheap abundant energy that could not last more than a few centuries. It may even be worth debating sometime how much this is the best of all possible worlds. Certainly most people in the world have not had their lives made significantly better by this new wealth. How many people still live on less than a dollar a day! Aside from China and India, the quality of life for most people in the Third World has gotten worse since globalization....which has only been possible since the Oil Age began. An end to the oil age will bring a collapse in the over-specialization of today's economies, and a return to localization. That alone would eliminate a major key source of carbon emissions -- agribusiness and factory farming. Before WWII, farms had a mix of crops and animals, rather than using oil-based fertilizers to grow corn and soybeans to transport to giant feedlots filled with sick animals pumped with steroids and antibiotics. The modern livestock industries are not only ethical abominations, they are also a source of almost one fifth of the total greenhouse gas production....a system that only exists as long as the total costs of its oil supply is subsidized. Well oil companies also get special exploration and development credits that were designed for an era when the oil industry was new and pollution wasn't a consideration. The capital cost allowances for tar sands development are supposed to begin phasing out next year, and won't completely end until 2015! And how exactly are these subsidies and incentives available to every corporation again? And there are many other special considerations that the oil industry has been able to take advantage of, that have benefited them directly and indirectly over the years: Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with: * Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free * Research-and-development programs at low or no cost * Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead * Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions * Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire * Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods * Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth) * The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve * Construction and protection of the nation's highway system * Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry? * Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below) http://cleantech.com/news/554/oil-industry-subsidies-for-dummies In geologic time, we have been on Earth for the blink of an eye! Rats and cockroaches are more adaptable than we are. Alligators and crocodiles survived the rise and fall of the dinosaurs, and the Age of Mammals, so they have also proven their resiliency; but what have we proved? All we have proven, is an ability to make great changes to the environment to suit our purposes, and to grow exponentially to almost 7 billion in population. Our present population, and the amounts of energy and resources we wish to consume, are already way past a level of sustainability. There will either be an orderly decline in our population and resource consumption levels, or we will hit the wall...have a massive die-off, and the survivors will either claw their way back, like our ancestors 70,000 years ago, or the cascade towards species extinction will continue. And we won't be around to verify the accuracy of the claims from the plunder-the-environment lobby, and if the human race becomes extinct, there won't be anyone around to shake their fists at the assholes who despoiled the planet. So it's the ultimate tautology to proclaim how adaptable we are. We'll find out if we either survive or go extinct. The Sixth Extinctionis based on the accelerating disappearance of plant and animal species. Sure there are always species becoming extinct as the environment changes and new species compete with the entrenched groups; but a noticeable increase in extinction patterns that began 100,000 years ago, accelerated 10,000 years ago when humans really began taking control of their environment and expanding into new territories....if you check into the end of mammoths, sabre tooth cats, giant ground sloths and other mega-fauna, you'll find that they closely coincided with the arrival of humans. It is possible that hunting was part of the cause of their demise, but the introduction of new diseases, agriculture, and setting fires, probably had a greater impact. But, the loss of these large animals was only the beginning of "phase two" of the sixth extinction. Indeed, to develop agriculture is essentially to declare war on ecosystems - converting land to produce one or two food crops, with all other native plant species all now classified as unwanted “weeds” — and all but a few domesticated species of animals now considered as pests. The total number of organisms within a species is limited by many factors-most crucial of which is the “carrying capacity” of the local ecosystem: given the energetic needs and energy-procuring adaptations of a given species, there are only so many squirrels, oak trees and hawks that can inhabit a given stretch of habitat. Agriculture had the effect of removing the natural local-ecosystem upper limit of the size of human populations. Though crops still fail regularly, and famine and disease still stalk the land, there is no doubt that agriculture in the main has had an enormous impact on human population size: * Estimates vary, but range between 1 and 10 million people on earth 10,000 years ago. * There are now over 6 billion people. * The numbers continue to increase logarithmically — so that there will be 8 billion by 2020. * There is presumably an upper limit to the carrying capacity of humans on earth — of the numbers that agriculture can support — and that number is usually estimated at between 13-15 billion, though some people think the ultimate numbers might be much higher. This explosion of human population, especially in the post-Industrial Revolution years of the past two centuries, coupled with the unequal distribution and consumption of wealth on the planet, is the underlying cause of the Sixth Extinction. Though it is true that life, so incredibly resilient, has always recovered (though after long lags) after major extinction spasms, it is only after whatever has caused the extinction event has dissipated. That cause, in the case of the Sixth Extinction, is ourselves — Homo sapiens. This means we can continue on the path to our own extinction, or, preferably, we modify our behavior toward the global ecosystem of which we are still very much a part. The latter must happen before the Sixth Extinction can be declared over, and life can once again rebound. http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html See above! Do you actually think that honeybee die-off can be fixed with some strategy specifically targeted towards bees? There is no clear cause of bee colony collapse, and it's more likely that it is a combination of factors associated with pollution and environmental degradation that are at fault. The consequences for our food supply are serious: http://www.naturalnews.com/021724.html And BP's Gulf disaster tells us that deep ocean drilling for the last remaining reserves of oil, is not a worthwhile risk...especially when the environmental impact of their product is factored in.

Just as I figured... you are only interested in playing gotcha, not learning anything new. And that's why you keep repeating the same propaganda endlessly. So the 3% number came from elsewhere, so !@#$$%% what! Most rational thinking people would see the increase, especially the doubling of the rate of increase in the last half century, as the takeaway; an indication that we are bringing about change at an ever accelerating rate. And even at the present 1% a year means we will be over 400 in less than two years. It is still a number far higher than the planet has experienced during human history. This isn't a game! This is life or death for future generations. But some people are only concerned about their immediate gratification, and would rather roll the dice on the survival odds of those who will follow us in the next few generations.

Eviscerates my ass! Once again, the do-nothing advocates go to the wreckless, careless strategy: until we have all of the evidence of all of the changes in CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels, we just keep on doing what we're doing. We have never had a time in human history when CO2 levels are as high as they are now. And that's what counts -- what weather extremes have we dealt with during the course of human history. Going back before human history with sketchy paleoclimate data (such as below) tells us nothing about what we can handle as a species. All we know from past extremes is that enough life survived to carry on an re-establish diversity...mostly with entirely new species of plants and animals. To hell with the global economy! The global economy is based on deliberate strategies of globalization and specialization, which have benefited large multinational corporations, not the citizens of the world. They have engineered an economic system that suits their advantages, not the average person. Why is it too costly to improve energy efficiency and develop new energy sources, while it is okay to keep subsidizing the industry that will kill off the human race if its quest for the last available oil isn't stopped: Oil production is one of the most heavily subsidized businesses in America, with tax breaks available at almost every stage of the exploration and extraction process, according to an analysis by The New York Times. The tax breaks average about $4 billion a year, based on various government reports, and are preserved by the oil industry's massive political influence. The many subsidies in BP's (BP) disastrous Deepwater Horizon drilling venture, which resulted in the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, are typical. Transocean (RIG), the owner of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, registered the rig in the Marshall Islands, where it is subject to lower taxes and less stringent safety regulations. The company moved its corporate headquarters overseas from Houston in 1999, saving $1.8 billion in taxes in its years abroad. It is headquartered in Switzerland now, where it has far fewer employees than in Houston. See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/oil-companies-billions-subsidies-tax-breaks/19541287/?icid=sphere_copyright A major disruption in climate that caused large scale extinction provided an evolutionary advantage to mammals consolidating their dominance of the planet....now, how exactly does this prove any point you are trying to make? We are the entrenched, dominant species that will be upended and go extinct....but as long as some other group of animals retakes the barren planet, that's okay from this crazy logic! Wow, this is getting frustrating! You are citing evidence that proves that we shouldn't screw around with adding greenhouse gases! Research which claims that mass extinction and the rise of mammals coincided with high CO2 levels somehow makes it okay to do the same stupid thing again deliberately! It should be noted that paleoclimate data doesn't correlate very accurately beyond a certain period of time, and a new method that I have linked several times already -- reported in Science last Octoberis the first to closely match the 800,000 year ice core sample data. And once again, that study shows that our present CO2 levels haven't been this high for 15 million years....which is also long before our time on earth. Ever here of biodiversity? As the human population grows worldwide, and develops the planet for its own intents, an increasing number of plants and animals have become extinct. We are already into a period of extinction, and we have no idea what plants and animals we depend on for survival. Look at the collapse in honey bee populations for example! No one knows exactly why honey bees are dying out, but the consequences of losing one insect is already having a devastating effect on agriculture. As long as you entrepreneurs want to do guess work with your own money, no one is going to complain about what you put at risk; but when you start risking the planet that everyone else lives and depends on, you are playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. We have Ex. A down in the Gulf of Mexico, of what happens when entrepreneurs are allowed to play Russian Roulette with the environment. The big oil companies, like BP, Exxon and Chevron, have collectively decided that, rather than let the party come to an end, they will drill deeper underwater into deeper sediments of rock, and the results are showing that little or no thought was given to what would happen if something went wrong! BP is a warning that we cannot trust corporations to do more than look after their short term interests. And we should take the rest of the barrels out of the chamber and bring deep sea drilling to an end, before the next disaster strikes. You did not even read it. It makes a compelling case that undiscovered fossil fuel reserves can be predicted based on past experience and based on those calculations CO2 levels cannot exceed 800ppm. You gave me a page to video links, and I wasn't in the mood to watch home movies! Besides, even if I can trust a study done at Tech school which is getting all of their new funding from energy companies, how much more damage will be done by allowing carbon dioxide levels to double?

Oh, so Christians who don't support the right wing agenda don't go to church and are not real Christians I suppose! Fact is the religious right is a modern concoction. Until WWII, religious fundamentalists were never on the side of the people with the money. Money used to be the root of all evil...nowadays, the lack of money is the root of all evil, and the Parable of the Talents is used at nauseating regularity by right wing preachers to convince their flocks that Jesus wants them to be millionaires (and give 10% to the church of course) Crime was not a divisive issue between Liberals and Conservatives until very recently, and Harper's agenda of building more prisons and the "tough on crime BS" is just parroting the Republican platform on this issue. At a time when crime is in decline, the Tories want an aging population that is afraid to walk the streets for fear of being robbed. It's a cynical ploy that does nothing to address drugs, poverty, and mental illness that are root problems that often end up causing crime. But real solutions are not what interests conservatives.

CO2 levels were 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and never went above 300 during the previous millenia of human civilization. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm What you are asking me to do is prove a negative, and this is complete bullshit! Your side which wants to discount evidence for warming and evidence that a warming planet will have harmful consequences for us and other life on Earth -- are the ones who have the burden of proof! We know that the biosphere and ecological systems are extremely complicated. If you have evidence that climate will be more optimum for us as CO2 levels climb above 400, You have to prove that rising CO2 levels are perfectly safe! You're just making up crap! Modern primates only branched off of a common ancestor 6 to 7 million years ago, and that article cited above, shows that modern, more accurate analysis of historic CO2 levels tell us that we have to go back 15 million years...long before there were primates, including us on Earth, before there was a time that CO2 levels were as high as they are now. The Earth at that time had no polar ice caps, higher sea levels, and like every other period of hot climate, it coincided with mass extinction of land and sea life that were living on Earth at the time. Why should they have to die out? And Bjorn Lomborg, and other con artists who have exaggerated the costs of fighting climate change compared to the costs of doing nothing, are misleading the public into the oil company-sponsored fallback position on climate change -- 'sure it's bad, but we'll find a way to adapt...just like the people and marine life in the Gulf of Mexico... but it's going to cost too much to make the switch from oil...so keep on burning that oil and go back to sleep' Based on the fact that the rate of CO2 increase continues to accelerate, there is no way to have any confidence in their report. Until we see reductions in CO2 levels, it doesn't matter what the rate of increase is, we're going to get there eventually.

Not really! That chart measures mean annual increase in CO2 rates, and one half of one percent is a Lot because the rate of increase over the last ten years is more than double what it was in the first ten years, from 1958 when the measurements began. And the most disturbing factor is that there has never been a drop in CO2 levels since 1958.

Why not? What good did cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes do for middle and lower income earners? Canada is among the developed nations that have seen growth in income inequalityover the last 20 years, in spite of inceases in GDP:

Yeah, let's keep waiting....10, 20,30, 40 years...eventually it will be too late to do anything about it anyway! Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising more than 3% per year now. What CO2 effects do you consider to be exaggerated? I suppose it will make no difference when it goes above 400 ppm...500...600...even though atmospheric levels are already higher than they've been in 15 million years, and the full repercussions haven't been felt yet.