The Belle Isle developer wanted to establish an independent city state which woud exclude its citizens from paying U.S. and Michigan taxes @Bing. It would be a Utopia for the wealthy whose taxes would pay for the upkeep and bureaucracy of the wealthy citizens with no tax money paying for the benefit of the poor. It would be the inverse of Haiti.
Well that’s not going to happen. That’s one of the reasons for the Civil War. Once you’re in you’re in and you can’t get out of the US. Except of course for Indian tribes which are considered nations of their own within a nation. What makes you think you can take a piece of a city and secede from the state and country?
MikeinNH, you’re dead wrong in regards to that 97% of climate scientists being based on peer reviews, etc, etc. Read up on Maggie Zimmerman and how that 97% came to be accepted as the norm. Ludicrous and laughable can’t even begin to describe how she arrived at that figure.
Think roughly 11,000 loaded 2 question surveys with half not returned. The remaining half were culled down to 75 and voila; 97.4% to be exact. 97.4% of 75…
Think it’s not about the money? This was not widely reported but it’s straight from the horse’s mouth. In other words, from Christiana Figueres the UN executive secretary on climate change. The quote is from earlier this year in Paris and they’re not my words.
She said: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution. … This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history”.
That statement doesn’t have a lot of fog in it…
@ok4450 - Here’s the actual study…dont’ take things out of context.
"Climate change" we can debate. Especially the impact of CO2 levels. But we must not sacrifice military resources to fight climate change.
Agree 100%. And in line with that…yesterday the US announced that Women will now be allowed in ALL military roles…including combat roles. This may be due to the fact that Military recruitment is way down. The women are suppose to meet the same standards as men for the same role. I know many women who are much bigger and stronger then Audie Murphy ever was (actually about half of women are). And he did pretty well in WWII.
I’m all for it
If somebody is qualified for the job, let them have it
That goes for other jobs, also, not just military
There was a joke on Arab television showing Obama saying that “climate change was the biggest danger to our military”. They were probably not the only ones puzzled by that statement.
Recruitment may be down because fewer and fewer can pass required fitness and background checks. Sorry Charlie, if you have a felony against you, you cannot come in. I still remember a poor guy who was so over-weight and under strength that he could not do a single pull up and just hung there. Back then you had to dead to not pass though but things have changed.
As far as world economic development, I am a firm believer that first you have to have a stable and functional government with laws and infrastructure and tribes not killing each other. Then you will have economic development. The UN would be wise to concentrate on these issues first.
Truly, I HOPE my views on climate change are wrong, and those of you who are skeptics are right. But sadly, with all the other challenges civilization faces, we may not last long enough to find out if its real or not. Even if climate change IS real, most of us who are pontificating on this issue today will be safely in our graves by the time the hens really come home to roost. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to deal with the real consequences, if any. They could then burn us in effigy i suppose, but I guess that activity would add even more carbon into the atmosphere, wouldn’t it?
Doc, I’ve been puzzled by just about everything Obama has said since 2012… and skeptical of everything he said before that. Turns out that my suspicions were not unfounded.
Some have called it delusional. I recall early on what Biden said just before Easter. He said the President was getting ready for Easter-he thinks its about him.
Is that because he lays so many eggs?
Okay, back to cars. I’ve had reservations since day 1 about the issue of CO2 emissions. CO2 is a byproduct of complete emissions, necessary to and promotional of healthy and robust foliage, and the conversion of CO to CO2 was previously considered a good thing.
Now, I admit to not being a climatologist or chemist (I wish Al Gore and Barack Obama would), but the whole thing doesn’t sound right to my ears. My gut suggests that in not too many years the save-the-world geniuses will reverse themselves again… as they have before… at least on this issue.
Thanks for bringing it back to cars, TSM. 
I try. But I’m not very disciplined.
Okay, back to cars. I've had reservations since day 1 about the issue of CO2 emissions. CO2 is a byproduct of complete emissions, necessary to and promotional of healthy and robust foliage, and the conversion of CO to CO2 was previously considered a good thing.
CO eventually turns into CO2 anyway. If nature had no way to deal with CO, it would have built up to lethal levels long ago. It’s not just cars that generate CO, it also comes from just about any fire. Forest fires, charcoal grills, wood stoves etc.
CO2 is claimed to be the enemy here. As TSM pointed out, we breath out CO2 and plants transform CO2 back to O2.
Combustion to make energy creates CO2 and water from hydrocarbon fuels like gas, oil and coal plus some other bad stuff that we’ve worked to control. So with a bit of CO2 comes a lot of water vapor.
Greenhouse gases are primarily methane (natural gas), ozone and nitrous oxide. The most prevalent greenhouse “gas” is water vapor, by far. About 80%. We don’t talk much about that greenhouse “gas”.
And ozone is triatomic oxygen.
B.L.E., Mustang, you’ve made excellent points. Have the powers that be, in pandering to the special interest groups, regulated our cars beyond the point of preventing damage to the point of preventing good stuff that promotes healthy forests?
Partisan politics seems to be trumping (pun unintentional) good sense on every issue these days. Maybe we are nearing the point of diminishing returns on controlling emissions in the 1st world and should look to reforrestation of the country to benefit air and water quality.
I get the impression that environmentalists feel they must “hit another one out of the park” to justify their existense and the public be damned.
Cars have gotten so clean that there have been reports of failed suicide attempts.
Well stated, Rod. I agree with your impression (conclusion?).