American legal issues...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**davidjones**

Except in the 1800's the kid would be in the mill so would not have time to play with toys ;-)

**Da Boss**

I'm feeling a bit better after my dinner so I'll come back with some facts.
Plants do need CO2 to grow; unfortunately for us, the ones that can utilize it the easiest to grow the fastest are weeds, as they are characterised by their ability to utilize resources quickly. See also algal blooms due to nitrogen polluction.
This isn't really the big deal actually, but nice try at muddying the waters.
My job used to be as an agricultural ecologist and risk analyst. I used to do population surveys on parasites of cattle. And what we found was that gradually increasing temperatures were changing the propogation cycle of these parasites- rather than having two phases of reproduction they were just reproducing constantly. It was interesting to me as on the ground indication of the influence of global warming on food production in a negative way.
Other interesting examples are the growth of malaria zones into regions previously free of the disease.
I'm not saying the sky is falling. I'm not saying Global Warming is going to destroy the world. But I am saying that it is happening, as far as I can see.

**Frazzled**

Your use of bugs is just...buggy!

How did you conclude that was temperature related?

**Da Boss**

The main restriction on their breeding was the temperature. And our weather data showed that it was warmer than it had been in previous years.
I must point out that my study was nowhere near long enough to conclude more than that for those two years the winters had been mild. I'm not trying to claim it as proof of man made climate change- more that warmer winters doesn't mean more food all the time. So assuming global warming is happening, which I believe it is, it would be good for the bugs but not so much for us.

**Kilkrazy**

The argument is no longer whether global warming is happening, the evidence for that is incontrovertible.

It is whether it is caused by human activity, and what can be done about it.

**Frazzled**

Actually there is quite a bit of dissension on that. When the former head hurricane guy, who I believe more than all the combined "genius" of the UN, has doubts, then its most certainly not settled.

To state its incontrovertible begs the question-why is it colder now?

Edit: I should say I'm a global warming agniostic so am going to back away from the arguments on the actual subject.

**ChaosDave**

reds8n wrote:
ChaosDave wrote:. There are just as many or even more published papers that contradict it and actually have indicators that back the thesis. Yet you choose to "cherry pick" what you want to believe instead of real facts.

Actually I don't think there are as man y or even more papers etc arguing against climate change ( not global warming). I appreciate there are scientists out there who don't agree, but from all I've read and seen the majority of scientists do believe that the climate is changing and mankind is, at least a partial, cause of this.

I am highly intertained by your definition of "real facts" as well.

Every paper/similar I've seen put forward de-bunking or arguing against climate change/ozone layer holes/cause of the week, has been just as easily debunked or refuted back.

What I do find highly interesting-- and this isn't directed at anyone who has posted here I hasten to add-- is the cries of martydom or greater insight those who profess to disbelieve display. Frequently to the point of daftness if not outright stupidity.

Just to clarify a few achingly obvious points : No, greenhouse gases don't help plants grow as plants also need water which tends to be lost in hot areas, and of course many plants don't grow well in high temperatures.

More CO2 does not mean better planmts and food for everyone, any more than floding helps plants grow as they like water.

And regardless how fast trees grow, we 're still cutting them down faster. Just look at the pictures of the Amazon rainforest from satellites.

With regards to the above links:

1. The one from Newstatesman : An intersting article, that's quite famous (in the UK anyway).

I notice you didn't link to the follow up article in the same publication which pretty much demolishes the entire thing

Please note the quote

Every qualified scientific body in the world, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to the Royal Society, agrees unequivocally that global warming is both a reality, and caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

All that said, yes, I am sure Govts. across the world will/do use this as an excuse to raise more tax revenue. Perhaps if we didn't waste so much on bloated military budgets and pointless wars in countries where we're not wanted or needed they wouldn't ned to. But I'm sure people have never ben harassed or hounded for, say, speaking up against a war that has ben proven to be a financially ridiculous and has failed to achieve many of the (many) stated aims.

A tax on gas does unfairly penalise many poorer people, for example tehy frequently can't live close to where they work or lack public transport facilities. I don't see a huge movement to raise income tax instead though.

I find it amusing how you completely glossed over Lord Moncktons debunking of the IPCC model. The IPCC model is the holy grail of the Global warming movement. It's what everything is based on and Lord Monckton shows how the model was skewed to provide an "Armageddon atmosphere" to further their political agenda. One key thing stemming from that report is "CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100". A 1 °F change over a 90 year period is within the margin of error for the calculations by the way. How about the fact that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed? Is this also caused by man made global warming? Are a bunch of people puttering around Jupiter in SUVs? Or perhaps something else is causing all these temperature fluctuations that aren't fluctuating for the past 10 years.

As far as CO2 and plant growth, well you are completely wrong. Here is an article that discusses plant growth in green houses and the effects of higher CO2 levels.
http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p8.htm

As far as "water which tends to be lost in hot areas", this is an assumption that heat only causes deserts to occur. This is completely untrue. More heat causes more water to evaporate and can actually increase rainfall. This is why we have so many equatorial rain forests. But this is all moot since Average global temp isn't increasing at any appreciable rate.

I can't wait until 20 years from now when global temps haven't changed and this idiocy of man made global climate change garbage can be put to rest. Just like the global cooling scare in the 1970s was put to rest and the first global warming scare in the 1920s was put to rest. I for one am sick of Media induced scare tactics like y2k, ozone layer holes, global warming, planets aligning causing massive earth quakes and the myriad of other junk news that you are so eager to believe. Hopefully people like you will wake up and start thinking for themselves instead of jumping at anything the sensationalist and politically biased main stream media throws at you.

**Da Boss**

Wait wait wait.
You don't believe in the holes in the ozone layer?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!
AAWWWW MAN
You are funny.

**gorgon**

ChaosDave wrote:I can't wait until 20 years from now when global temps haven't changed and this idiocy of man made global climate change garbage can be put to rest. Just like the global cooling scare in the 1970s was put to rest and the first global warming scare in the 1920s was put to rest. I for one am sick of Media induced scare tactics like y2k, ozone layer holes, global warming, planets aligning causing massive earth quakes and the myriad of other junk news that you are so eager to believe. Hopefully people like you will wake up and start thinking for themselves instead of jumping at anything the sensationalist and politically biased main stream media throws at you.

Dave, your particular political bent comes through loud and clear in your posts. If I were you, I'd hesitate to say others aren't thinking for themselves when you seem to be picking up the conservative talking points verbatim.

reds8n wrote:As if. Two weeks here with our weather and unbelievable lack of customer service and yuou'll be running home again. Crying.

Bah. I used to live in Pittsburgh. A study done there at the time said the city averaged 60 sunny days a year. Overcast and drizzly don't scare me. Your food might.

**reds8n**

ChaosDave wrote:
I find it amusing how you completely glossed over Lord Moncktons debunking of the IPCC model. The IPCC model is the holy grail of the Global warming movement. It's what everything is based on and Lord Monckton shows how the model was skewed to provide an "Armageddon atmosphere" to further their political agenda. One key thing stemming from that report is "CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100". A 1 °F change over a 90 year period is within the margin of error for the calculations by the way. How about the fact that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed? Is this also caused by man made global warming? Are a bunch of people puttering around Jupiter in SUVs? Or perhaps something else is causing all these temperature fluctuations that aren't fluctuating for the past 10 years.

To be honest with you I assumed you wre more aware of the man's reputation. In the UK-- and I assumed seeing as you are so well versed in this argument clearly

-- he's regarded as a joke. One who's arguments don't actually stand up to any actual analysis at all.

see here

As far as CO2 and plant growth, well you are completely wrong. Here is an article that discusses plant growth in green houses and the effects of higher CO2 levels.
http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p8.htm

As far as "water which tends to be lost in hot areas", this is an assumption that heat only causes deserts to occur. This is completely untrue. More heat causes more water to evaporate and can actually increase rainfall. This is why we have so many equatorial rain forests. But this is all moot since Average global temp isn't increasing at any appreciable rate.
Hopefully people like you will wake up and start thinking for themselves instead of jumping at anything the sensationalist and politically biased main stream media throws at you.

You appear to be labouring under several misaprehensions. Firstly there is a difference between carefully controlled "fed" extra CO2 for plants and widespread enviromental damage which is what I/we(?) are actually talking about. To paraphrase, it is possible to have too much of a good thing.

I'm not assuming heat "only causes deserts to occur" at all. I'd prefer it if you didn't put lies in my mouth. More heat can indeed help with rainfall, but voften not in the right areas. I don't really have to tell you about the "Dust Bowl" or the "Dirty Thirties" do I ?

I am highly entertained that you accuse "people like you (me)" of jumping at what the media throws us. After all you're the one who just linked to a site that sells "alternative" cancer treatments and recommends books by L.Ron Hubbard.

I'm sure we can get you de-programmed if we all chip in.

I'm being accused of being a stooge by someone who vomits back rightwing talkshow "science" ? Really ?

Wow. Quick ! You best run out and buy something like a good little capatalist consumer !

@ Mr. Gorgon : 60 days ? Good god, you must all have skin cancer. Oh, hnag on, apparebtly there's no hole in the ozone layer.

We don't get 60 minutes of sunshine

If the food didn't get you then the roundabouts and the public transport will !

**ShumaGorath**

This topic makes my head hurt with indignance and anger. Can we get back to the SUV argument, which was at least an argument of personal preference and need, and not one of two people shouting as loud as they can at scientific evidence so prolific it could fill an ocean?

ctually there is quite a bit of dissension on that.

I'm going to trust the millions of scientific personnel in every country planetwide and my own knowledge of chemistry, physics, and climate over the armchair climatologists worldwide.

I'm not assuming heat "only causes deserts to occur" at all. I'd prefer it if you didn't put lies in my mouth. More heat can indeed help with rainfall, but voften not in the right areas. I don't really have to tell you about the "Dust Bowl" or the "Dirty Thirties" do I ?

Heat doesn't cause deserts, ground level heat is a side effect of the climate which deserts propagate. Unkempt soil erosion and draught cause deserts, which is why near every desert on the planet is hugging right up against a mountain range which denies it an aggregate amount of rainfall. Whenever you have systemic draught you end up with a desert climate (dry tundras are also desert climates).

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm going to trust the millions of scientific personnel in every country planetwide and my own knowledge of chemistry, physics, and climate over the armchair climatologists worldwide.

Well thats convinced the skeptic in me. I agree and will tow the line as soon as China and India do. Nuclear reactors and dams all around-hurray!
You know it really does fit with the new policy of "investing in infrastructure." Lets build 250 dams! Time to invest in concrete companies and pronto

EDIT: but ayah back to the SUV debate. No one's going to win the global warming fight when everyone is powered by the intranets warp power.

**ShumaGorath**

Well thats convinced the skeptic in me. I agree and will tow the line as soon as China and India do. Nuclear reactors and dams all around-hurray!

You realize thats a game of chicken that all three countries will lose. Good luck with your dyeing in a car accident.

You know it really does fit with the new policy of "investing in infrastructure." Lets build 250 dams! Time to invest in concrete companies and pronto

Dam power has been used about as much as it's going to work already. Nuclear power would be the best stopgap measure until solar towers, wind farms, solar panels, and wave engines get worked out and up and running.

but ayah back to the SUV debate. No one's going to win the global warming fight when everyone is powered by the intranets warp power.

SUVs have a use, it's just not one that 80% of SUV owners utilize. Offroad cargo carrying with the capacity of seating multiple persons is quite rare.

I live in Maine USA. Three quarters of the people living here who own SUVs don't need them. If you don't need them in this frozen snowburied hellscape then you don't need them in california. It's not a vehicle for suburban use, which is it's largest vector of sales. Gas taxes also do not solely impact SUV owners, and an overall tax increase (rather than an at the pump tax which would likely include exceptions for freight) would cause a slowing in many of the sectors which saw slowing when gas was at its record prices before.

**grizgrin**

Oh Shuma, the guru of all on 4 wheels! Please, more; I beg you! Of COURSE your life-experiences in Maine give you expertise in what is required in the other 49.

**ChaosDave**

reds8n wrote:
To be honest with you I assumed you wre more aware of the man's reputation. In the UK-- and I assumed seeing as you are so well versed in this argument clearly -- he's regarded as a joke. One who's arguments don't actually stand up to any actual analysis at all.

see here

That article refers to Gavin Schmidt who works for Dr Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and whose methods are questionable at best. He is Al Gores right hand man in the Global warming religion. In fact your little article calling Moncktons methodology questionable by quoting people whose own methodology is in question is quite ironic don't you think?

reds8n wrote:
You appear to be labouring under several misaprehensions. Firstly there is a difference between carefully controlled "fed" extra CO2 for plants and widespread enviromental damage which is what I/we(?) are actually talking about. To paraphrase, it is possible to have too much of a good thing.

Really? too much of a good thing? So millions of years ago when CO2 levels were as much as 20 times higher than today it didn't cause rapid growth in plants that allowed other animals to grow very large? Strange I was always taught that the dinosaurs did exist. I guess I'm wrong according to you.

reds8n wrote:
I'm not assuming heat "only causes deserts to occur" at all. I'd prefer it if you didn't put lies in my mouth. More heat can indeed help with rainfall, but voften not in the right areas. I don't really have to tell you about the "Dust Bowl" or the "Dirty Thirties" do I ?

See there you go off on a tangent again, you quote something then allude to a reference that has nothing to do with the subject. The Dust bowl of the 30's was caused by a drought whose cause you claim to be heat. There is no evidence that the 1930s drought was caused by some sort of decade long heat wave.

reds8n wrote:
I am highly entertained that you accuse "people like you (me)" of jumping at what the media throws us. After all you're the one who just linked to a site that sells "alternative" cancer treatments and recommends books by L.Ron Hubbard.

Everyone has some sort of political agenda, at least I acknowledge it. You however think that everything the media feeds you is the gospel truth. Hear no evil see no evil speak no evil.

reds8n wrote:
I'm sure we can get you de-programmed if we all chip in.

Right, in one of your newly commissioned reeducation camps no doubt. I'm sure you could brain wash many people if you really spend the time and money on it. Let all hold hands and embrace your Orwellian society.

reds8n wrote:
I'm being accused of being a stooge by someone who vomits back rightwing talkshow "science" ? Really ?

Truth is truth no matter the source. You spit out left wing talking points then turn around and accuse the same thing of me. How does it feel to be a hypocrite?

reds8n wrote:
Wow. Quick ! You best run out and buy something like a good little capatalist consumer !

I'm proud of the freedom that capitalism provides. In fact it has even given me a decent education and I can even spell Capitalist correctly. Unlike the conformist socialist system you seem so fond of.

**dogma**

ChaosDave wrote:
Really? too much of a good thing? So millions of years ago when CO2 levels were as much as 20 times higher than today it didn't cause rapid growth in plants that allowed other animals to grow very large? Strange I was always taught that the dinosaurs did exist. I guess I'm wrong according to you.

Are you really going to try and compare the physiology of dinosaurs, which we know next to nothing about, to that of human beings and other contemporary critters? Sure, high levels of CO2 can cause rapid plant growth...once the plants in question have evolved to adapt to the environment.

ChaosDave wrote:
I'm proud of the freedom that capitalism provides. In fact it has even given me a decent education and I can even spell Capitalist correctly. Unlike the conformist socialist system you seem so fond of.

Where did he advocate socialism? With a gas tax? Dude, seriously, real socialist states don't tax luxuries, they seize them. The 'socialism' being discussed in the course of any credible, modern debate is simply a subset of the larger capitalist economy.

**ShumaGorath**

grizgrin wrote:Oh Shuma, the guru of all on 4 wheels! Please, more; I beg you! Of COURSE your life-experiences in Maine give you expertise in what is required in the other 49.

I live in the ideal environment in which SUVs would be required over minvans or transport vans. But sure, if you want to hear me type some more just give me a topic. It's good to hear that I could bring a sliver of happiness to your presumably horrible and sad life (am I doing this sarcasm thing right?).

**sebster**

grizgrin wrote:This is funny. There are people in this thread who actually have the sheer, unadulterated gall to think that they know what's best for everyone in a country of 300 million people. To think that they know what everyone needs, and what everyone warrants.

I actually can see gorgon's point of view. There is sense and thought going into the opinions there, and I say that because he does not apply his logic to "everyone". But for those who are saying that "everyone" should do this, or "no one" needs that? Wow. The arrogance is straight out of an Imperial slogan.

I will CERTAINLY concede that not everyone needs an SUV. Absolutely. But to say that no one needs one is to presume to know the needs of everyone. If you can do that, m'fren, you should be in the world domination business; you'd do ok.

But by all means, continue. I can use the laugh.

You are right that it is wrong to say no-one needs an SUV. Fortunately that argument isn't needed to justify higher petrol taxes. Remember it isn't just about SUVs, but also improved fuel economy in small and medium cars.

grizgrin wrote:Whatwhat: maybe you need to get off YOUR high horse and consider that people living in other places have different needs, in some cases dictated by immutables like locations of cities. Britain is much smaller, and laid out MUCH differently.

Try looking at Australia then. We pay taxes almost as high as Britain, and yet our population density is around one tenth of yours (the US with 31 people per km2, Australia with 3 per km2).

Frazzled wrote:That is correct-hence the market solves the problem. But again no addresses the regressive nature of the tax.

As an OT, the concept of government reducing a non-income based tax is great, but like the unicorn, although often talked about, I've never seen a real body.

You might want to look into the government of other countries before deciding what government can do. Australia introduced a national sales tax, which is a lot larger than a fuel tax, but once tax rate adjustments and welfare changes were made the overall package was progressive. I think the US is smart enough to manage something similar.

I'm also left scratching my head how you've suddenly become so concerned over regressive taxation... it didn't seem to be such an issue when comparing the McCain and Obama tax packages.

ChaosDave wrote:Well the sooner we burn through the oil the sooner we will be forced to use alternative fuels. Isn't that a win win for everyone? Also more green house gasses cause plants to grow faster, more c02 means better crops and more food for everyone, faster tree growth and forest replacement etc etc. Aren't these win wins also?

Sbuh? The reason we don't want to use them is because they're doing damage. If we use them up then we'll have already done the damage.

Oh I know you are concerned about the new global warming religion. The fact is it's just a method of control, its a scheme to advance global socialism by forcing people to pay more for energy, food and other necessities.

Socialism does not work that way. Please explain the connections between climatologists and this socialist organisation set to conquer the world with its fuel tax.

**sebster**

dogma wrote:Where did he advocate socialism? With a gas tax? Dude, seriously, real socialist states don't tax luxuries, they seize them. The 'socialism' being discussed in the course of any credible, modern debate is simply a subset of the larger capitalist economy.

In his first post ChaosDave linked fuel tax to some new socialist world government. No, I don't understand it either.

**Grignard**

dogma wrote:
ChaosDave wrote:
Really? too much of a good thing? So millions of years ago when CO2 levels were as much as 20 times higher than today it didn't cause rapid growth in plants that allowed other animals to grow very large? Strange I was always taught that the dinosaurs did exist. I guess I'm wrong according to you.

Are you really going to try and compare the physiology of dinosaurs, which we know next to nothing about, to that of human beings and other contemporary critters? Sure, high levels of CO2 can cause rapid plant growth...once the plants in question have evolved to adapt to the environment.

ChaosDave wrote:
I'm proud of the freedom that capitalism provides. In fact it has even given me a decent education and I can even spell Capitalist correctly. Unlike the conformist socialist system you seem so fond of.

Where did he advocate socialism? With a gas tax? Dude, seriously, real socialist states don't tax luxuries, they seize them. The 'socialism' being discussed in the course of any credible, modern debate is simply a subset of the larger capitalist economy.

Great Christ, here is another example where I agree with Dogma almost completely, there is something wrong here. Seriously Dogma, argue about how my guns need to be taken away or something so we can fight, this just isn't right.

The fact is that most people who know what they are talking about agree that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, and it is very real.

The question is " Do I really care?". Well, considering I'm working as an environmental chemist in a state lab you better hope I do. When I hear everyone's self righteous, hypocritical statements about SUVs, it makes me want to dump motor oil in the creek just to spite you. As someone who is a conservationist and outdoorsman I won't do that, but my ideals are in serious competition with my desire to be uncooperative.

**ShumaGorath**

Sbuh? The reason we don't want to use them is because they're doing damage. If we use them up then we'll have already done the damage.

The environment can screw itself, the reason we need to move away from them is so that we aren't screwed when we run out. It's not a technological issue, its an infrastructure issue. We need to have oil in order to make the infrastructural changes that will allow us to survive without it. This is not a change the free market will make alone, capitalism chases bubbles, and it will ride the oil bubble all the way to the ground. Its the nature of the system itself to look into the present, without care for the future. The human condition is a short lifespan, and we've modeled out economic basis off of it.

You can't make a forty year planetary infrastructure changeover if your global economic system has crashed. Thats like swerving out of the way of the other car after it's hit you. Not gonna help much.

Oh, and plants aren't going to pick up the slack of our Carbon production WHEN WE CUT THEM ALL DOWN AND MAKE HOUSES OUT OF THEM. An enormous part of the carbon problem is the biospheres vastly diminished ability to deal with it.

**dogma**

Grignard wrote:

Great Christ, here is another example where I agree with Dogma almost completely, there is something wrong here. Seriously Dogma, argue about how my guns need to be taken away or something so we can fight, this just isn't right.

Well, now that you mention it, there has been an awful lot of uppity gun nuttery going on...I kid, I kid.

Grignard wrote:
The fact is that most people who know what they are talking about agree that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, and it is very real.

The question is " Do I really care?". Well, considering I'm working as an environmental chemist in a state lab you better hope I do. When I hear everyone's self righteous, hypocritical statements about SUVs, it makes me want to dump motor oil in the creek just to spite you. As someone who is a conservationist and outdoorsman I won't do that, but my ideals are in serious competition with my desire to be uncooperative.

In all honesty, while there is a human component to climate change, it also has to be pointed out that there is almost certainly a natural one as well. What this means is that, while we may be accelerating the problem, we are also incapable of stopping it completely. Which is fine really as most of the (non-sensationalist) climate reports I've read seem to indicate that the time scale for real debilitating affects (as defined by the current concentration of the global population) is likely beyond the scope of the lifetime of the United States.

That said, the happy fact that converting to a renewable energy economy (whatever that may entail) is a superior decision with respect to foreign policy, long term planning, and economic potential means that I almost always come down on the side of environmentalists.

Of course, dating one for a while doesn't hurt the opinion bias either.

**reds8n**

Grignard wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
I'm proud of the freedom that capitalism provides. In fact it has even given me a decent education and I can even spell Capitalist correctly. Unlike the conformist socialist system you seem so fond of.

Where did he advocate socialism? With a gas tax? Dude, seriously, real socialist states don't tax luxuries, they seize them. The 'socialism' being discussed in the course of any credible, modern debate is simply a subset of the larger capitalist economy.

The fact is that most people who know what they are talking about agree that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, and it is very real.

The question is " Do I really care?". Well, considering I'm working as an environmental chemist in a state lab you better hope I do. When I hear everyone's self righteous, hypocritical statements about SUVs, it makes me want to dump motor oil in the creek just to spite you. As someone who is a conservationist and outdoorsman I won't do that, but my ideals are in serious competition with my desire to be uncooperative.

**Da Boss**

I just can't get over the idea of a worldwide socialist conspiracy. This guy has obviously never met that many proper socialists- they're more facticious than Orks on a bad day.
And obviously the way to force our agenda is....climate...change?
What?

Also, dude. I live in Ireland. We don't have MSM the way you do. I actually learned most of what I know about global warming in university and through reading scientific journals. Unless those have been infiltrated by my sharing is caring brothers too...*gasp*

Normally I wouldn't be this scathing, but your freedom being threatened over your widdle SUV when people all over the world are feeling the real effects of this issue is just freakin' laughable. I'd always thought the stereotype californian conservative didn't exist. But here you are! It's like finding bigfoot.

**Frazzled**

The Canadians would absolutely love global warming. I'm just saying, there's always a bright side.

**Da Boss**

Well, apart from those indigenous cultures who live part of the year on the ice. They're apparently finding it a bit more difficult these days.
But who cares about them!
They're practically POLAR BEARS!

**reds8n**

Indeed. We keep being told over here that the changes will result in large parts of France being under water and balmy tropical weather in the UK. As arguments against climate change they are in severe need of a rethink.

**Frazzled**

Yea, the argument that global warming might turn the UK into a new Tahiti probably doesn't work that well.

**reds8n**

It only works when you remember that our natural skin tone is a kind of pale blue. And we don't tan, we go from pasty to lobster with no inbetween. The only tans we display are on our teeth, and that is of course entirely the fault of the great dental wars of the late 70s/early 80s depleting the ranks of our enamel controlling overlords. Never have so few flossed for so many.

**Da Boss**

All that tea has a staining effect too.