Um....dude....in that article itself, it admits that green house gases do indeed trap infrared radiation. It, quoting from the article you linked, says "it slows the release of infrared radiation to space". That's trapping it. Slowing it means it's here longer. That's trapping it. That's ignoring all the other, quite honestly, bunk claims and science in that article. Another example is the moon being hot/cold compared to the earth. The moon is actually quite cold. Surface rocks can be very hot, but that's like saying your house is burning down because you touched a hot pan on the stove. But even so, that's not even the point of climate change and global warming. The point is that those buffers that your article talks about, the oceans especially, being those great heat sinks, are warming up. The air is not a good heat sink. The oceans are. And I can actually go into the physics of why CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and why water and CO are as well) if you want, but it's kinda getting off topic and would take a while to go through.
Yup. Seen that. But what about temps outside human history? Climate. Changes. We aren't gonna turn into Venus.
No, we aren't going to turn into Venus. But we are going to lose a lot of resources we have now, it'll be more expensive and difficult to live here, and it will be our fault. What about temps outside human history? I don't have a fancy graph, but are you not disturbed by that insanely fast uptick at the end? In that chart, there's Krakatoa, there's the mini ice age caused by the invasion of Europeans in the Americas, there's the end of the ice age, and look at how small and slow those are compared to the end of that chart. Look at how subtle all those changes are until the end. Venus is closer to the sun and has a LOT more green house gases than we do. It has a CO2 concentration of something like 96%, and then it has sulfuric acid in the air as well which is an even better insulator. We have no acid (well, not as much since we implemented reforms to emissions
), and our CO2 levels hover way below that, below 5% It's something like 2% right now I think? At no time in the Earth's history, aside from the very beginning when it was basically a ball of molten rock and meteors constantly, has the temperature average of the planet changed so rapidly. Not even the comet that hit 65 Myrs ago.
The person chooses 'B' or 'D'. The person responsible for my health, and healthcare, is me. If you injure me, you get to pay, but otherwise, I'm responsible. 'A' just means that everyone who pays the hospital also pays for those who don't pay (the exact same as "taxing corporations"; their customers get to pay taxes twice). One reason Healthcare prices have inflated is because there's unaccountable money (the person with the benefits is not ultimately responsible) injected into the system (Same with tuition prices; grants, scholarships, et. al. merely serve to inflate prices for all). Right now, if a person goes to ER when it's not life threatening and can't pay, everyone else picks up the tab anyway.
So you are A) okay with hospitals not treating someone who can't prove they have the means of paying, and B) you are okay with them treating you and forcing them to pay regardless of their ability.
You are okay with the hospital doing a procedure, without consent, and forcing them to pay. That's what option D is.
Option A is what we were doing because as a society we decided that we were obligated to help our fellow man. The moral choice for a hospital was to treat everyone, and figure out payment later. Because otherwise bad things happen (see: mob tactics). Option C is what we are doing now, because the government was able to collect and provide a benefit to its citizens. A safety net. Obamacare attempted to move this one step further, letting the government provide insurance, which would have reduced prices for everyone, and it has spectacularly worked, given out medical climate. Rates, even after the rate hike we're expecting next year, are far below what it was projected to be before the implementation of the law.
Do you believe that all consumer protection services should be canceled? I'm honestly asking this. Should companies and businesses be allowed to make whatever claims they want, any business practice they want, and just let them run wild? That's the sort of stuff that we did in the 1800s and early 1900s. Life was really, really bad back then, especially for the working class family.
You don't get to tell me what I can't say. You can disagree with me. You can oppose my position. You can decry that my words make me sexist/racist/homophobic. You. Don't. Get. To. Shut. Me. Up.
You're right. But do not confuse this with the person listening's right to not listen to you, or to not think you're a monster, racist, sexist, unicorn, whatever they want to think you are. They have that same right. They have the right to be offended and treat you as an offender. However, you do not have the right to hurt someone. Again, no shouting fire in a crowded theater. Just like no punching. You mentioned the whole conflict thing, this is that conflict thing. You can absolutely be charged with conspiracy for shouting hate speech because the law knows that it is not 'fully protected'. They have to show that you intended to incite violence with it, but in some cases this is not hard to do. Others it is hard to do. And regardless. You having the right to say something awful, does not mean the other people have to listen to you or respect you or take you seriously or insult you back. You do not get to tell them what to say, you do not get to shut them up. It makes you stressed to be called a racist after you say something that insults someone? You just freaking insulted someone! And you are complaining about them complaining about it! You are trying to say that they can't say back to you what you just said to them!
Finally, the BLM stuff. Your original complaint with them was that they were hateful and such. I mentioned their purpose and now you are saying that they're not focusing on the correct part of things. But are they? Why is the existence of 'black on black crime' preventing people from being outraged that the government is killing people based on race? I mean, it's not true that that's happening, but some police officers have shot people because of their race. That i a thing that has definitely happened over the past entirety of human civilization, but more pointedly the past couple years. I won't pretend to know what it's like living as a black teen in today's America, but I can listen to what they're saying about their own experiences, and I encourage you to as well. I don't feel I need to counter the points and arguments you made in this section, because I feel they're irrelevant and sidestepping the issue. Regardless of the existence of other times of gun related deaths, it's still wrong that police kill unarmed civilians. And BLM is not supporting those other gun violences either.