Man Made Global Warming

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

it's not about finding out that smoking is dangerous, it's about TREATING THE DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. palliative care, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, lost working hours, hospital care... these things are all a massive drain on the health system so paying for the increased cost through taxation of the people who cause the increased expenditure is, basically, pretty fair. non-smokers are not contributing to the care of those who put themselves at risk. that some non-smokers also contract these diseases through no fault of their own and will benefit from advances in treatment or prevention is not a bad thing. how can you fail to make this simple connection? the state also explicitly lays out how they will spend this increased revenue, and that it will almost entirely go towards research for smoking - and in a small part non-smoking - related diseases and smoking cessation. put a burden on the health system by your activity, be it driving without a seatbelt and paralysing yourself or engaging in a demonstrably risky habit, and it seems fair that you contribute to the cost through taxation. as less people smoke the income from lower taxes is reduced, but the costs do not appreciably decrease in providing cancer care units.


nasa is a highly politicised agency and always has been, in that it was originally conceived for the dick waving contest the USA and USSR were engaging in. it continues to be a tool for politicians, ala bush and obama saying they are going to do big and exciting things with it.

Wait a minute, now shouldn't the person being treated be the one to pay for his care, via the cost of his health insurance over the years? Why is it the states responsibility (read yours and mine) to take care of these people? Its really not.

My grandfather in law had a wonderfully simple way of describing the only obligations of the federal government: Protect the country and deliver the mail.
I think we should probably get towards cutting everything that doesn't fit into those two areas, and leave the rest to the people and what they wish to do via their state legislatures. You sacrifice too much by letting one central government decide for so many people. Smaller govt=better representation. I believe there were some really great fellows who had a similar idea back in the late 1700's.
I mean why is there this big push to just give all power to the state. Seriously the last people we should be granting MORE power to.

We had a similar ballot proposition that just failed here in California, proposition 29.
The state, in their grand wisdom, wanted to set up so many programs and their associated bureaucracies with this additional cigarette tax (and not for the state of california. Funds would have been spent in other states and countries) that a mere 20% of the funds received would have actually gone into any type of research.
Ya, lets give these types more power and money. Its bound to turn out well.

The whole NASA thing you have going there is just incomprehensible. Were a species that needs to expand and explore, and that's what they do.

[_OD_]

Seriously?!?

This is a new one to me, coming to a flight sim forum to debate the merits, or otherwise, of global warming; and as usual anyone who takes an objective stance is a Nazi or a Communist.

Left and Right do not need to dominate your thinking of politics or your ability to question something. It is right that both sides are examined and a consensus is reached. However that does not appear to be the objective of the original post.

Climate change...is it natural, is it being accelerated by humans? I do not know, obviously there are a range of theories. Some are being pushed by lobby groups on behalf of groups with a vested interest in fossil fuel production and say that it is not happening. Some have no vested interest and say it is not happening, however I am more inclined to be sceptical of the ones with the vested interest, for obvious reasons.

On the other side, the only people who really have a vested interest in an alternative to fossil fuels are those that produce systems for renewable energy. That is not the majority of people who were originally advocating this idea. Governments are running with this idea...does this make it bad or wrong, or a conspiracy to deny you or me our supposed rights? No.

What is wrong in a country being able to secure it's own energy without the threat from another of a hike in prices, eg OPEC in the 1970's, or Russia controlling the flow of gas to the Ukraine and Europe. It is right that a country should be able to provide it's own energy using the means available, some of these means DO pollute one way or another, whether it is CO2 or contaminating an area with nuclear waste etc. Even some renewables, it can be argued, can cause a form of pollution - some people hate the sight of wind farms for example - it's not emitting anything but some people think they're ugly and spoil the landscape.

So what is wrong with governments pushing for their own countries to secrure their energy security? There is an initial outlay. One way or another it will have to be paid for, whether by a state introduced tax or through increased bills so the company introducing the new forms of energy does not hit it's profit margins. I would rather it was done by the government as in some areas I trust them more than a private company. A private company is not run with public interest in mind it is run for the benfit of its share holders. The share holders of a government are essentially the public so it stands to reason that the interests of the government are to satisfy it's shareholders...

I personally do not agree with everything that comes from the 'eco-mentalists' (to quote Jeremy Clarkson). I do not see that an electric car is better than a petrol car. The idea seems flawed as it's range is poor, and it charges from a source that is powered by fossil fuels...so how does it reduce pollution? I would however argue that the hydrogen fuel cell has the potential to be better than both an electric car and a petrol/diesel car. However it has drawbacks. The production process uses a lot of energy...a way needs to be found to do this efficiently and on a huge scale to make it a feasible source of energy. Who should pay for this? Why shouldn't government subsidise it? What is the difference in government subsidy and private investment...one way or another you, as a consumer, will pay in the end. However the government can later sell the technology and make the money back for the public. A private corporation has already taken your money, made a profit, created new technology and then sold the product making more money...they benefit more and you are still out of pocket!

As for the financial crisis...that can be explained by the human condition of greed. How anyone can justify some of the huge wealth when you can look around, not just the world but their own countries and see desperate poverty. I'm talking the US, the UK as well as other parts of Europe. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the gap is widening.

As a Police Officer in the UK I have seen some of the absolute poverty and it is shocking and kept quite well hidden. The conditions some people live in are horrendous. Maybe they caused some of it themselves, but not all of it. There has always been rich and poor and a capitalist system needs these distinctions to be able to work.

Seeing these conditions leaves you in a dilemma. State welfare is one of their life lines. Take it away what happens? Will these people just curl up and die? Can a moral nation allow that to happen? Or will these people fight for their lives? Will they turn to crime (more so than already) to stay alive and try to live up to the ideals of society of having more more more? Which is cheaper? State benefits for the poor or paying the high costs of fighting crime and compensation for those who have lost as a result through theft, damage, injury and loss.

Neither can be justified, and as with the debate on climate change the whole thing is an experiment. There will be different methods tried all over the place and will come to different conclusions to suit each societies needs. Left or Right, private or government, it doesn't matter so long as the process is agreed upon implemented and done with the good of everyone in mind, not just the few at the top.

[kendo65]

Good post OD.

-----------------

Personally speaking, I have had enough of trying to deal with the pure idiocy expressed by several people (Atag_doc, MadBlaster) on this forum in the various political threads that have appeared recently.

They are like people who demand the right to believe the sky is coloured green with orange polka dots, who when challenged by any evidence-based reasoning that it may actually be blue, retreat into a fantasy land of conspiracy and denial, and accuse you of infringing their freedom of speech.

Last night's posts took the biscuit (e.g. "Today both Republicans and Democrats have been co-opted by Progressives" and "In Europe Right and Left are Socialist." Atag_doc). How do you even begin to reason with that? I have concluded that it's not possible. I understand now why Andy lost it and got banned. It is very difficult to deal with such narrowly disguised arrogance and closed mindedness.

So, guys, stay in your familiar, right-wing comfort zone. Keep believing that the entire world beyond a narrow, right-wing, Fox News-fed grouping is a socialist conspiracy whose only goal is to find ever more novel ways of increasing your taxes.

I won't be posting replies to any of your nonsense any more.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by jimson8

I'm good with it, as long as you also tax motorcycle riders for the drain on society for trauma care, also those with other physically dangerous hobbies, those who don't exercise and of course those who do because of sports related injuries and you would want to institute a gay tax for the past if not present costs associated with HIV infection.

road tax and petrol tax could be seen as the sources for that revenue stream. plus motorcyclists fulfil an important role as organ donors. a "fat tax" on high fat content food items has been proposed and would see some measure of popularity, especially considering the costs associated with long term obesity, diabetes etc.

a tax on homosexuality because of HIV? i will presume you are making sport with that one.

Originally Posted by CWMV

Wait a minute, now shouldn't the person being treated be the one to pay for his care, via the cost of his health insurance over the years? Why is it the states responsibility (read yours and mine) to take care of these people? Its really not.

My grandfather in law had a wonderfully simple way of describing the only obligations of the federal government: Protect the country and deliver the mail.
I think we should probably get towards cutting everything that doesn't fit into those two areas, and leave the rest to the people and what they wish to do via their state legislatures. You sacrifice too much by letting one central government decide for so many people. Smaller govt=better representation. I believe there were some really great fellows who had a similar idea back in the late 1700's.
I mean why is there this big push to just give all power to the state. Seriously the last people we should be granting MORE power to.

We had a similar ballot proposition that just failed here in California, proposition 29.
The state, in their grand wisdom, wanted to set up so many programs and their associated bureaucracies with this additional cigarette tax (and not for the state of california. Funds would have been spent in other states and countries) that a mere 20% of the funds received would have actually gone into any type of research.
Ya, lets give these types more power and money. Its bound to turn out well.

The whole NASA thing you have going there is just incomprehensible. Were a species that needs to expand and explore, and that's what they do.

so now we're moving on to state provision of healthcare versus private healthcare? health insurance that goes to a company whose interest is their profit margin, rather than a state collected tax whose interest is (one would hope) the health of it's population.

concur on needing to expand and explore, however the whole space race thing was a dick waving contest with the soviets. this conflict did indeed drive progress though, and the desire to expand and explore has lasted longer than the dick waving.


OD, good post - stop being so reasonable and measured. it's so unfashionable.

kendo - yep

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Good post OD.

-----------------

Personally speaking, I have had enough of trying to deal with the pure idiocy expressed by several people (Atag_doc, MadBlaster) on this forum in the various political threads that have appeared recently.

They are like people who demand the right to believe the sky is coloured green with orange polka dots, who when challenged by any evidence-based reasoning that it may actually be blue, retreat into a fantasy land of conspiracy and denial, and accuse you of infringing their freedom of speech.

Last night's posts took the biscuit (e.g. "Today both Republicans and Democrats have been co-opted by Progressives" and "In Europe Right and Left are Socialist." Atag_doc). How do you even begin to reason with that? I have concluded that it's not possible. I understand now why Andy lost it and got banned. It is very difficult to deal with such narrowly disguised arrogance and closed mindedness.

So, guys, stay in your familiar, right-wing comfort zone. Keep believing that the entire world beyond a narrow, right-wing, Fox News-fed grouping is a socialist conspiracy whose only goal is to find ever more novel ways of increasing your taxes.

I won't be posting replies to any of your nonsense any more.

That is the reason why I did not bother to participate here anymore. Too much brick wall to bash the head against, only leaves you with headaches.

[_OD_]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

OD, good post - stop being so reasonable and measured. it's so unfashionable.

I apologise, I will ensure I flame posts from now on

Been a while, but I used to be on Ubi-Forums a lot and see stuff like this and just find it tiresome. I think some people just seem to lack objectivity when they come on to the internet. Forums are meant for discussion, participants in discussions can have different views...if they don't it's a bit pointless having a discussion! I do wonder whether the same people on here would have the same approach in person.

Anyway...

Just a thought from me

[kendo65]

OD - you are, of course, correct.

But 54 pages of this stuff has seen me reach my own personal limits of reasonableness.

I've finally decided to resort to the Ignore List to preserve my sanity.

Apologies if my last post was a bit OTT.

Now, I'm off to focus on the footie...

[Porsche]

Guys the point I tried to post in earlier discussions was the fact that neither side is right. You have people that are inherently left or right. These people are the ones that get their panties in a twist. When one person accuses Fox news of being right and that it is in essence evil then you have outed that person as being a leftist. The point being Fox and CNN in America are both propaganda channels that are designed to take your thinking away and have you always accusing the problems of the country/world on the other side. Have a brain and think for yourself. If everyone could actually think for themselves and not be programmed to think other than what is being bombarded on the channel they watch then the whole world would be a better place. Europeans I have found in many ways do not understand Americans. We have two sides in our country. One of people who are inherently Socialists. They think the government should take care of everyone and dictate what they should do. Now they will tell you that's not the case however they will argue for this all the time. Then you have the Right that does not want government in anything however as they preach this they are dealing with companies that benefit from the military industrial complex. Then there are people that see things in the middle of the two. They realize that the government takes care of many things already and that being 100% supposedly Free Market and self regulated has led us to where our financial situation is. However there are only two parties in American politics. Both have collectively voted for and caused all the problems. In America both sides try to brainwash the people to associate one side with either the complete left or complete right. Too many younger people are influenced by this and seem to attack or get extremely angry at anyone that does not have their view/ or the view of their party. This is called divide and conquer. Everyone here realize that no one is 100% right. That does not exist in real life. We all need to work together to make the world a better place for the future. Truly listen to each others opinions. From there you will be able to break out of the brainwashed ideas you have been fed. You will grow your mind and become the person you are meant to be. Not what the news channel tells you. We are all alike anywhere in the world. It is external factors telling you otherwise.

Peace everyone...

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by _OD_

Seriously?!?

This is a new one to me, coming to a flight sim forum to debate the merits, or otherwise, of global warming; and as usual anyone who takes an objective stance is a Nazi or a Communist.

.

Whats even more funny is most if not all of them are not scientists!!!!

[SlipBall]

Well I received this today, oh joy the idiots will now regulate us even more, based on bad science again