AstroProdigy

!@#$%^&*Z YEAH!

If they're sold legally on a large scale as if they're candy, even the mentally disturbed people, then anyone can get illegal ones also.

Hillary says if she's elected she will make Bill the roaming amb!@#$%^&*ador to the world. That's very tempting.

Water does trap heat, but it also reflects it to a large degree. That's why the death of the Dinosaurs was actually because clouds of dust blocked out the sun and cooled the earth, not simply because of the asteroid impact. What I'm referring to is all the cloud cover that reflects sunlight back into space. That's why particles that can form clouds both heat and cool and at least partially cancel out their effect on heating. My point is that CO2 basically only absorbs heat and combined with the more effective methane and other material we release into the atmosphere they have a massively more efficient effect than the water vapor that is 95% of the aerosols. THEREFORE, although at first it seems we aren't releasing much into the atmosphere if you look at it in terms of how much we are warming the earth with the greenhouse gases we release compared to how much the natural greenhouse gases are heating the earth we are having a 3% effect and that is exactly what climateologists say it is. I'm making the same point you are, but in a different way. ;-) I hope Edwards wins the Democratic nomination I like his policies. He should have beaten Kerry in the primaries and ran against Bush; then we would have been spared the extra 4 years of !@#$%^&*bag and along with it the extra disgust the world has with us.

Water largely has a cooling effect on the earth so what we're considering here is the percentage of warming effect increase not the raw sources. The fact is we contribute .28% of the actual gases, but the warming we contribute is 3% which is 2 degrees celsius and will be another 4 degrees celsius over this century, which will increase droughts in hot areas, melt ever increasing sources of ice, flood our coasts, and who knows what else. Preventing the loss of homes for the massive coastal populations is PLENTY of reason to stop it, not to mention the effect of massive refugee populations would have on their surroundings. I don't know about you, but India, for example, does not have the capacity to take in over 200 million Bengalis in their already overcrowded country just because corporations want to make more money. If the death of poor non white people isn't enough reason for our white dominated world to stop, the Netherlands is also utterly screwed if we don't stop our irresponsible actions. What we're facing if we don't stop is at the very least the collapse of scores of coastal countries and massive chaos and death worldwide.

What's being argued here isn't what nature is doing on it's own it's what we're doing to nature. If nature is naturally warming, then humans accelerating the warming would make things even worse. If humanity was negating a cooling effect that'd be fine, but it's like a car driving 20 miles an hour towards a brick wall and then accelerating it to 60 miles an hour. You might be fine after hitting the wall at 20 miles an hour, but 60 miles is deadly. The fact that we're releasing more CO2 and at the same time getting rid of the trees that absorb CO2 is taking us towards a point where new sources of CO2 will suddenly be released and the trend will support itself until we get quite a bit hotter planet. Sever's graph shows that if it's not our fault that there's suddenly a big increase in temperatures then it must be little green aliens, because the earth does not produce such results without outside intervention. The fact is if there's a 90% chance that we're screwing ourselves as the vast majority of climatologists say then we're being insane to not do anything. Even a 10% chance of us causing a catastrophy on ourselves is enough reason to warrant action.

I'm taking an atmospheric class and also research global warming and I came up with a very different conclusion. To me the debate is manufactured. Global warming is well do!@#$%^&*ented and even if its only 90% sure it's happening that's not enough to try to stop such cataclismic consequences? We're not playing the lottery here. Gore isn't even running. The people still behind the Republican Party are the Conservatives and it'l be a cold day in you know where before they let a black woman be the Republican nominee for president. If it's Gulliani versus Clinton it's third party all the way. Edwards vs McCain for the win!

Wild Luck: You have no evidence to back your very specific claims and a website I can't read isn't going to do it. The way you think of homosexuals as a "corrupted people" shows an agenda you're trying to push here. Little is known about what causes homosexuality, so what you put as facts here is just speculation. Aileron: Sociologists play their part too. There is no universal "liberal agenda" or "gay agenda". I would say homosexuals have an even healthier relationship with the other gender than straight men if you ever hang out with them. Gay men obsessing about their mother is a stereotype and if it was true then it simply means unlike straight men gay men don't get embar!@#$%^&*ed about their mother unlike straight men because their more comfortable with women (no sex drive towards women develops). It is ABSOLUTELY not a modern occurance. When 150 years ago homosexuality could still be punished with death scores of gay people hid their preferences. Today we have freedom and most gay people are willing to come out. Homosexuality isn't a socializing problem. I don't think the federal government should p!@#$%^&* any amendment concerning gay marriage; I think it should be left up to the states, but when I hear conservative politicians toting a ban on gay marriage to get some extra votes it disgusts me. Btw when atmospheric SCIENTISTS said global warming was very likely happening and it was our fault that was also called a smokescreen for their opinions; just an interesting point.

Wild Luck: Why is it that conservatives who probably never talk to gay people and if they do it's to p!@#$%^&* judgement and not hear anything they say are taken seriously on this issue? But hey I'm annoying no need to provide a website we can even read. You throw a few big words and a few numbers and then back it up with something I can't check up on. CONGRATULATIONS! Yes I'm sure cannabis causes homosexuality and I also think I read off a website somewhere that you can overdose on cannabis. That's also a completely irrational load of crap with no credible basis. Congratulations. You're honestly sitting here saying they found a gay gene? Are YOU on cannabis? Maybe that'l make you be gay since thats what your website said. Again; congratulations for wasting my time with your ignorance.

Barak Obama is nice, but where exactly is his record? We already took a chance with someone who lacks a record and got screwed with 8 years of Bush we won't have more chances to screw up for a while.

Wild Luck: I'm sorry, but I don't see where I put out a website on statistics here, can you please provide one? Aileron: Homosexuality is neither a disease nor an addiction. Being gay isn't like doing drugs and as long as a lot of people in this country keep being told that it is then it will always be an issue used by conservative politicians to allow them to do whatever they want the way Bush did. Do you honestly believe people simply turn gay because they have crappy lives? HUGE misconception you have there.

I think both Clinton and Obama are both overrated. Edwards is the better candidate regardless of the lack of precedents he'll break.

Did you pull this statistic out of your !@#$%^&* or a conservative mouthpiece that also says evolution has no evidence?

Of course there is no proof that Iran is creating the weapons. They aren't showing them their missile technology and now they're keeping secrets about their nuclear material supposedly because of sanctions! It's much easier to create the system for the nuclear material to be put into than the nuclear material. All they need to do is keep secret a few kew parts of their nuclear enrichment that NBVegita has clearly proven from the fact that they don't. So let's summarize the events. 1) Iran is developing the nuclear material and now using sanctions as an excuse to keep secrets to say develop the nuclear material further to the point that it can be used for nuclear weapons. 2) Iran is keeping secret its missile systems that could be used to send said nuclear material and saying why should they tell the world about their missile programs? 3) As soon as both the nuclear material and missile systems are developed all Iran has to do is put them together and then they have nuclear weapons. Oops they actually would have nuclear weapons then, but it's ok because it's their right since the United States and Israel have nuclear weapons. Sounds to me like Iran is stalling while it has time to make nukes, but hey they oppose Israel and have a tiny minority of Jews in the country that are discriminated against, but give a single token and completely worthless representation to in their completely worthless parliament so it's ok. Sounds logical. I know some Persian Jews and I bet they would laugh at what you think they believe. Of course they're proud of their Persian heritage. It doesn't mean doodly squat about the extreme oppressive dictatorship in Iran. You cite a single article as absolute proof of some extreme view of how Jews are treated in Iran and assume that it means the psychopaths who rule Iran with an iron fist love the Jews! You're grasping at some tiny straws there.

I've heard people say Turkey has been rejected because it's too eastern. That's not even it. Turkey would be admitted if it didn't continually perform illegal actions. They're becoming an obstacle to us in Iraq. The only reason we can't just divide up Iraq between the 3 groups is because Turkey doesn't want a free Kurdish state inciting their large Kurdish minority to want their freedom too. Cultural borders didn't seem efficient for Europe either. It took many, many wars for it to happen. World War 1 and 2, the breeakup of Yugoslavia, the wars that brought the German states together, and many more. I'd say most of the deaths from war in Europe in modern times was because of messed up borders in Europe. The Kurds of all groups in the Middle East fought very hard to gain independence, but unfortunately our weapons sales to their oppressors has made it impossible without our intervention. Our greatest allies in the world are the people we saved which is what people don't seem to understand.

Iran does have Sunnis it's just they have a smaller Sunni group mainly confined to the Kurds. That being said an invasion of Iran will almost certainly create a situation with the Kurds similar to that of Iraq and further exacerbate Turkey. There is also a large Azerbaijani population that Turkey will most likely support in an attempt to quell Iran's Kurds and increase Turkish influence. There are a number of other smaller minorities including an Arab one in the oil rich southwest that might want to join with their Shiite Arab brothers in Iraq. It wouldn't be a religious conflict; it would be an ethnic one. I'd say the only responsible way to invade Iran would be to end our long time alliance with Turkey and cut both Iran and Iraq into pieces. The most major reason why we can't just cut Iraq into pieces and end the violence is Turkey so in today's post Cold War world Turkey has become an obstacle not an ally. Why not just invade Turkey too? All we need to do is take out their armed forces and then the Kurds of Turkey will hold their independence on their own. Then we could divide up Iraq and Iran along ethnic lines and create a long overdue peace in the middle east.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4660762.html I think Sever owes me a beer.

The problem is you need racism in the other direction to counterract the racists who keep minorities down. Equal status in every respect obviously doesn't work in France with the poor, angry Muslim minority that developed. It's about what would practically work not what's right in theory.

I wouldn't take it that far, but I think it's safe to say Hezbollah is not an innocent organization bent on the good of Lebanon. It's a factional Shiite organization bent on the dominance of the Shiites in Lebanon and the destruction of Israel. When certain scholars say "Israel still occupies some of Lebanon" they refer to a small plot of land that is internationally recognized as Syrian and belonged to Syria before Israel captured it along with the Golan Heights. It was all a trick to justify violence. Whatever your belief on Israel and Palestine is, Hezbollah is basically a terrorist organization and a proxy for Iran.

Looking back Hezbollah had a very strong spin on the media coverage of the event. The media showed civilian damage, but it never showed the massive damage to Hezbollah infrastructure. We also see now that Hezbollah really is a mouthpiece of Iran. Iran can't go to war directly so they use their proxies in Iraq and Lebanon.

There was a lot of support for Hezbollah beforehand, but now that all the facts are in I think some people (including Europeans obsessed with the idea of Middle East "neutrality") feel pretty dumb. Let's discuss!

A deep way to think, Yoink.

I find that Europeans try so hard to be politically correct and present both sides of the issue that they end up having to support sides that are EASILY wrong. They also feel guilty about the whole oppressing the world thing so they sympathize with former colonies with people willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up to get their message across.

Body heat comes from other sources anyway so all we do is take the energy from someone else and the net result is no different. Increased CO2 from breathing+Increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels+Decreased O2 from logging=BAD combination. It's not that the environment can't handle change. It's that we're seriously pushing it.

Yeah Long Island and the parts right above NYC don't count as upstate.