NBVegita Posted January 29, 2007 Report Posted January 29, 2007 even if all of NYC was flooded we'd still be fine. Having the economic center of NYC demolished upset the stock market, but otherwise had a minor economical effect on the country. If all of NYC was under water we'd be just fine. And think of what the addition of thousands of miles of waterfront property would do for the housing industry!? I think I'd become a real estate broker
AstroProdigy Posted January 29, 2007 Report Posted January 29, 2007 We'd be just fine? The World Trade Center was just a tiny part of the area that would be destroyed if global warming occured. You do understand that the vast majority of the money NYState gets from taxpayers comes from the parts on NY that would be flooded? While upstaters whine about high taxes we're the ones who actually pay for their government benefits. The United States economy would survive, but would be very badly damaged along with our place in the world. If upstate NY was demolished, however, the effect would be miniscule. NYC freed from the corruption of the state would actually be better off. Not to mention no more conservative upstaters movement.
NBVegita Posted January 30, 2007 Report Posted January 30, 2007 Well you see I don't personally gain any benefit in my life, as of now, from this "vast amount of money" you and the NYC people pay. You have high taxes because of your county, and pay extra to the city of New York. And whatever else you pay doesn't effect me at all. I have no children so I'm not concerned if any of your money goes to schools. My company, National Grid, is located out of the UK, and the north east division headquarter is located out of Syracuse NY. I don't benefit from any government aid programs, get no money from the government. As for city and road upkeep, that is solely on the county and cities involved so yet again any money you, or the thousands of people pay don't effect me. As for medical benefits they are paid in full by my company. So why yet should I be so concerned about the money that I don't get from you? Even if a company has their headquarters in NYC, they would evacuate in plenty of time, and relocate. Lot's of money would be lost due to expenses by said companies, and relocating the over populated city, but it would not be the end of my world if NYC was flooded. And you may correct me if I've forgotten about some program that takes what little money is left after you pay the rediculous city of new york tax, and the crazy county taxes down there, and happens to give any of that to me or my neighbors. But I can't say I'm surprised. It seems a good portion of people I've known from NYC have this I'm-better-than-you at!@#$%^&*ude towards upstate New Yorkers.
AstroProdigy Posted January 31, 2007 Report Posted January 31, 2007 Psssh don't deny it. You know we're the World Headquarters part while you're the Montana part.
NBVegita Posted January 31, 2007 Report Posted January 31, 2007 lol ironically most of the intelligent people working in NYC don't live in NYC
AstroProdigy Posted February 2, 2007 Report Posted February 2, 2007 Yeah Long Island and the parts right above NYC don't count as upstate.
PoLiX Posted February 3, 2007 Author Report Posted February 3, 2007 Well, one idea we had back in HS was what if the world is still coming out of the Ice Age. It was only a few thousand years ago, and just from historical records and stories it sounds that is was colder back in the 100s-1000s. But seeing as we only have true do!@#$%^&*ented weather since the 1800s, we can't really compare it on a great scale. Yes, the past 20yrs have seen a bigger percentage increase, butt here is also a huge increase in population, and more people on the planet is more body heat and CO2. There is many things causing a warm up, but we can't ignore the basics that we can fix. The unnatural causes that we make.
AstroProdigy Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 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.
candygirl Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 thats over thousands of years. And honestly in a thousand years we'll have technology you've never dreamed of. We'll have colonies on dozens of planets. Lets just say global warming is not on the top of my concern list. If there is life out there "what makes you think they will let us colonies other planets? Ya lets go a f^%^% up another planet like we did this one.Anyway by the time we can colonies we would have killed are selves.
candygirl Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 Has anyone seen Al Gores Aninconvenient truth? And if so what do you think?
NBVegita Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 Bah we're an imperialistic race. We'll just take over other planets. Minus stability factors, the technology isn't too far off from being able to inhabit a planet like mars...in a bubble...kinda like total recall... And if we can do that, just make a bunch more bubbles and we'll live under water Look at that two birds with one stone
Aileron Posted February 12, 2007 Report Posted February 12, 2007 No, I haven't seen Al Gore's movie. Infact that might be an example of why global warming has gotten out of control - because environmentalism is always championed by malcontents with a political axe to grind. If I recall that's why Kyoto fell apart...certain nations attempted to use it as a way to put sanctions on the economies of other nations. Last week I wrote a great post on this topic only to have it erased as I was posting it by my "fascist" apartment network updating itself. I'll have to rewrite it here. The problem with the environmentalists is that they are absolutists who refuse to compromise. Instead they make enemies of business and government, and they try to make up for it by making demands which they simply lack the political power to back up. They usually like to form a crowd and demonstrate from place to place, always walking up to and sometimes crossing the line between protesting and rioting. If they did a cool objective look at their resources, they would realise that if they had everyone in that crowd donate a dollar, they could pool enough money to hire a lobbyist who would have a heck of a lot more effect than the protest. But worse than that is their inability to compromise. For example, with electricity. Supposing we assume that the location specific plants (hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, etc.) have all been built and do not meet requirements, all that remains is fossil fuels, nuclear, and solar. For decades environmentalists have championed solar solar and only solar. However, as of yet our energy needs have outgrown the development of solar technology. However since cost-effective solar technology hasn't been developed yet, energy companies have decided to simply ignore the environmentalists and build fossil fuel plants, which is the worst thing in terms of emissions (and ironically the worst type of plant in terms of radiation leakage as well). If the environmentalists decided to compromise their desire to reduce air pollution with the public need for electricity in the here and now rather than some hypothetical future when we might have some perfect energy source, they would have championed nuclear, energy companies would have (under sufficient pressure) built nuclear, and we would be using a middle-of-the-road alternative and would have less carbon-monoxide in the air. Another example is my college town's light pollution. This affects me because I like looking at the stars once in a while. Worse yet is a used car lot next door that's running a !@#$%^&* spotlight. I don't get it because nobody buys cars at 8:00 at night!!! Furthermore the only person who is going to be attracted by that !@#$%^&* spotlight is Batman, and his car is nicer than anything they have in that lot. I'm sure environmentalists have tried to create a city wide ordinance against any and all light pollution and failed, though if they tried to compromise and propose and ordinance against the spotlights in used car lots I'm sure it would pass The other problem is they don't form the alliances they should. For example, hunters. Hunters have a huge reason to preserve the environment. More forests and cleaner forests mean better hunting. I grew up in an area affected by urban sprawl, and the best places to find forests are state game lands, which have the support and more importantly funding to resist development. If environmentalists made a tactical alliance with, say the NRA, they would get massive support from both sides of the aisle. Even, !@#$%^&* Cheney, a man so right-wing that even I don't like him would suddenly be torn on the issue. With that much support, they could have passed any bill they wanted! However, again environmentalists must get their absolute, and in their opinion is if the forests are to be preserved then every stupid little animal in the forest must remain unharmed by anything. (As if animals didn't kill and eat each other before mankind showed up.) Again, deer don't take in carbon dioxide, trees do. The environmentalists refusal to compromise means that both hunters and environmentalists are losing forests and urban sprawl goes unchecked. If the environmentalists had compromised, there would be less CO2 in the air. But that's what you get when you let your leadership be a bunch of political malcontents like Al Gore. He hated his loss in 2000 and now his career is devoted to making his opponants "pay". Such at!@#$%^&*ides never bring progress and if it were possible environmentalists should have made someone else their spokesperson, even if the other alternative isn't as famous. You can build up a person's fame just by putting his or her face on camera a lot, but if your spokesman has a bad at!@#$%^&*ude, there is nothing you can do about it.
11___________ Posted February 21, 2007 Report Posted February 21, 2007 THE US IS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE WORLD!!! Ok so "we" started the whole global warming theory, but is our impact as much as other countries. China and India are expected to double or more their gas usage in the next 20 years. The US has 300million people. India and China each have 1 billion plus, don't use much, or any, smog controls. If anyone really wants this idea to prosper, they should try to get a bit out of the rest of the world before storming the US.
Recommended Posts