13 total posts
What was Gore's tax rate last year?
I'm no fan of some of his recent activities (and Jon Stewart skewered him in person during a recent interview about the sale of Current TV to Al-Jazeera), but the thing with Romney wasn't so much about how rich he was as it was about how he got the money (corporate raiding) and how little income tax he paid on it.
Well, corporate raiding was anything but
that done by Bain so any such charges are patently false. As for taxes, I've no problem with anyone who keeps within the law. No one needs to pay more than what the the tax code requires. If it's felt that some pay too little, seek to change the code and let's hear both sides of the argument and fix what's broken rather than in praising or condemning anyone based on what percent they pay in taxes. I'd be more interested in knowing how they live their lives as citizens and what they do in the way of service and charity. I doubt either Mr. Romney or Gore live a life distracted by wine women and song as have some others...especially those leaders in other countries.
Al Gore got his by perpetuating a Big Lie
all while he was investing in the industries that would benefit by his Global Warming Scare he was creating.
It would seem there's plenty of scientific evidence
that the earth's temperature has undergone many warming and cooling cycles with or without humans being around. It would seem that any part man could play in significantly altering the temperature one way or the other would be nil. I'd dare to say that, if the earth is warming today and the entire human race made and kept a suicide pact, the warming would continue to complete its normal cycle.
I will agree there always have been cycles
I'm not sure that civilization's effect can be classified as NIL.
Clearing forest and building concrete jungles then add gasses that certainly affect the atmosphere, I can't say nil.
I seriously doubt it has been the primary mover as some claim, but the tipping point idea comes into play. Could just a little push by civilization prolong a cycle at one phase, even if it didn't stop it completely. Or shift the center point of the cycle.
The devil of it is, given how most things the interpretation changes every few decades, the worse effect of our influence on the biosphere may not have been speculated on yet, or at least not by any sizeable or influential group.
People take up the strangest new "findings" as gospel. I've got a co worker who has started eating only every other day because of a study that shows people who fast regularly have less cancer.
Ok then...I'll change it to say next to nil.
This argument tends to get very black/white
One side accuses the other of claiming that man is 100% responsible for climate change, when I don't know of any reputable scientist who believes or has said that. I think it's naive to believe that all of the crap we belch out into the air is having no effect at all. Pollution contributes to it but is not the only cause. Pollution also contributes to increased cancer rates and all kinds of other health issues. There are many reasons to try to be more environmentally responsible. The impact on global temperatures is only one of them.
The difference is that it's happening faster
than any of the other cycles.
You can deny that we aren't having any effect but it doesn't tally with what is going on.
I've said for a long time that we are not destroying the earth. It's been around a long time and will be here a lot longer. We are simply destroying our ability to live here.
I was thinking along those lines
just the other day, wondering how much extra grain to help feed the world could be grown on the wide arable land between interstate lanes.
"Median width: Minimum median width of 36 feet (11 m) in rural areas, and 10 feet (3.0 m) in urban or mountainous areas."
I-95 is 1,925 miles long. The entire interstate system is 47,000 miles long, approximately. All the areas are not "arable" but almost all of I-95 median certainly is. There are also shoulder areas.
"Shoulder width: Minimum outside paved shoulder
width of 10 feet (3.05 m) and inside shoulder width of 4 feet (1.22 m).
With three or more lanes in each direction, the inside paved shoulder
should be at least 10 feet (3.05 m) wide. If truck traffic is over 250 Directional Design Hour Volume, shoulders at least 12 feet (3.66 m) wide should be considered. "
So, let's take a loose average of median and shoulder areas and say even considering little to no median where interstate passes through cities, there is about 40 feet strip across all those miles on I-95. One square mile is 640 acres. An acre is 43560 square feet. A strip 40' wide would need to be 1089' long to create an acre. There is 5280' in a mile.
Do some math and we come up with 4.85 acres per mile. That's 9,333 arable acres unused for growing grain along just the I-95 length. You can find the bushels expected for those states per acre of wheat or corn and see how much grain isn't grown there. Georgia averages 150 bushels corn per acre. Even New York State runs between 130-150 bushels per acre on corn, about 65 bushels per acre on wheat.
Sounds like a great idea but do you know how they plant
wheat and harvest it? They have these huge machines that go up and down the fields to plant and harvest. We don't use hands and scythes anymore. Also a lot of the medians are not level; they go down so, if you go into the median, you down in a ditch rather than across into the other lane.
Maybe a better idea would be fruit trees or other fruit bushes or plants. Things that come back every year and need to be hand picked.
not all wheat is grown on flat land
I'm wondering just how arable that land really is
If in an area where roads are salted in Winter, I'd suspect some of the soil might not be that good for planting anything sensitive. I'd also think that the air coming off the highways from buses and the big rigs might not be the best. One thing median planting might be good for, however, is slowing down vehicles that leave the roadway. Maybe, at the expense of a few sheaves of wheat, a life would be spared.