So was Calvin Coolidge.
Al Gore's mansion is in Nashville, which last I checked wasn't near the ocean.
EDIT: He also has a place in Montecito, Calif. Also not near the ocean, but closer than Nashville.
Earlier this month, Democrats in the House and Senate released draft legislation that put a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions to reduce the use of carbon-heavy energy sources, like coal. A move which was cheered on by environmental groups.
“It rightly sets aggressive goals and builds on the progress already underway to clean up pollution from our cars, trucks and new power plants,” said Franz Matzner, associate director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Confronting climate change, though, will require the use of current authority to cut emissions, in addition to complementary measures such as those in the draft bill.”
Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer also introduced legislation to put a fee on carbon emissions which would fund green-energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.
How did this thread get so derailed?
Why are a majority of those who vote for one party rejecting science? That is the question of the day, I think.
such science has been politicized.
yeah the dem congress had nothing to do with that
If humans evolved from monkeys, specifically chimps, then why are there still chimps?
I just read this article. This shows how unbelievably stupid Americans are. Its frightening that acceptance of science is the same rate here as it is in Muslim countries.
Christianity is more detrimental than all of the infectious diseases in the USA.
*sobs*
And then we have complex multi-cellular forms in competition with pathogenic asexual single cell forms which are able to mutate far more quickly. And yet, so far at least, no single sell form has succeeded in wiping out other forms entirely. That really shouldn't be all that difficult either. In other words, with the incentive simple life has to fill the world with it own form, and given that bacteria for instance can mutate so very fast, why has no bacterium ever eliminated all the competition?
This is an interesting point and I thank you. I've never seen anybody present it before. Factors such as: area covered by the species, adaptation to environments, reproduction speed of the species (and thus regeneration of populations) seem to be responsible for answering the question of why there isn't a super bacteria that has annihilated them all. It seem statistically improvable for one species of any kind to wipe out another when both species are native to the environment. Why is it lions haven't wiped out gazelles or wilder beasts? One has evolved to be the prey and the other to be a predator so with such simple data, we might conclude that lions will eventually wipe out their prey. However, we know this isn't true because well lions don't breed in the same numbers as their prey. If anything, the prey easily outnumbers the predator 1000 to 1. The same may apply in the microscopic world. Bacteria who feed on other bacteria may be outnumbered by their prey.
Food sources also plays a role. Bacteria can literally feed on almost anything. So where as one type of bacteria may feed on say plant A exclusively, a second type of bacteria may only feed on the carcass' of animals. This makes it improvable that one bacteria would overcome all others.
I can say that only in environments which have been altered by humans have we seen one species destroy another. We introduced certain plants into Victoria Lake (Namibia) a century ago. Today, the plants have destroyed the cichlid population and threaten to completely wipe it out. In short, by altering the environment, we have successfully managed to destroy a habitat where species became extinct through natural processes (drought, favorable breeding conditions for native predators, competition for food sources).
Now, if we take into consideration that some populations of bacteria can be contained within a petri dish, it seems unlikely that one could prevail over all others when you factor in weather, food sources, adaptations etc.
Why has no terrestrial predator ever eliminated all competitors? Or all pelagic (living in the ocean) predators eliminated all their competitors? Why arent eagles the ONLY avian predator still in existence?
Because a species does not evolve in a vacuum. Again: evolution is nothing more than a RESPONSE to environmental change.
Every living species on earth EXPLOITS its own niches within many diverse habitats. The ones that do not succeed disappear...eventually. Or, they adapt.
So the competitive pressures of OTHER species...predators in this case....drive evolutionary genetic changes in directions where that species is or may be successful.
I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying the reasons for why there isn't such a thing as a super predator are varied in the macro/micro world. They range from the particular adaptations of a predator to its environment, to the range it covers, to the prey itself.
Aw, don't worry, although I was being just a bit tongue in cheek there, it is striking that the reply to it was a wiki page listing "the Ministry of Creationism" as authoritative source. Look, I don't have all the answers, and neither do those who argue evolution, as evidenced above by a poster, not interested in anything but calling those who believe in creation names, and stupid. Great debate right?
One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows
Okay - who here rejects evolution?
Show of hands please.
"Republicans" are growing skeptical???? Really?
Like there's growing evidence against evolution?
it is striking that the reply to it was a wiki page
Yeah. Certainly sounds as though moveon funded this gem.
In reality, it's probably all in the question.
As opposed to those people who use that great oracle of scientific fact - the bible.
No one claims that. It's just your own nasty little attack of those that think differently than you. And it's petty.
Why?
Are you doubting the claims?
Are you suggesting there's a smaller percentage of Americans that reject evolution?
LOL-Gore couldn't even win his home state where he had been a long time senator. Kerry was a fraud and his main skill was marrying women worth lots of bucks so he could whine about the rich. and Bush managed to earn the two degrees he sought while Gore failed to complete two of the three he sought and Bush's academic resume was superior to Kerry's as well
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?