I agree with your point that zero taxes are also bad. We need government like we need air to breathe and governments need money to operate. Right now we are over taxed and we over spend.
One of the results of over taxation is outsourcing, of people, jobs and businesses. Make it affordable to do business here and you will see an increase in revenues, and jobs.
The best analogy is a sub way system. If you raise rates, you lower participation. People take cars or do something else. Lower rates, and more people ride == more revenue. Yes, you can lower it to where revenue will drop. It's a curve. But you raise it too much, and you will loose revenue.
A business works the same way, if prices are hiked, demand will be reduced and there will be fewer sales. It's the old adage, I'd rather take a large sack of coins to the bank than a handful of cash.
So...lets get on with it. We need to stop spending so much money in places that have no value. Leave the debt ceiling where it is and let's face the music now instead of later. Raising taxes will only further DECREASE revenue. That's right, if you drop that gear into 4th while going up a hill, it's only going to stall your engine.
STOP SPENDING! Just stop spending, cut the budget to fit what monies we have.
The payload capability of the space shuttle is incredible. As far as I know, we don't have anything on the drawing board to match it.
I agree with the cancellation of the shuttle program, it was very expensive, but the problem comes from not having the guts to go and improve on the shuttle concept. We are taking a step backwards.
I don't know if we'd have the images and science we have today w/o the shuttle. Look at the Hubble. How many times was that thing fixed because we had the shuttle? I mean, we pulled up along side a satellite, pulled it into our flying repair shop, fixed it and redeployed it. How cool is that?
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
I remember there was a time there would be professionally managed mainframes that companies would then use to do things with on a timeshare basis. Seems that 'Cloud' computing is more or less a return to that model.
Funny how things never seem to change.
The questioning of the moon landings comes from NO ONE with any credible scientific background, yet LOTS of credible (and credentialed) folks are questioning the work being done on global warming. Yet those good folks are being put in the same category as the loons who question the moon landings...incredible.
I find it unnerving that you would dismiss creditable dissension to a closely held theory as something to do with democracy. Folks like Monsieur Allegre raise valid points that should be addressed and not swept under the carpet.
We the folks are trying to examine both sides of this sometimes hard to understand argument, and when one dismisses the other with words such as "science isn't democratic", then (in my view) you've left their arguments unanswered and your credibility questioned.
Like I said, I have more reading to do, I'm sure we'll be speaking again.
There was once a time when it was consciences that the earth was flat. A didn't take a scientist to prove them wrong. Okay, I understand that we are much more sophisticated in sorting out what is truth and what is not. But I also wish to point out that there was a time were all sorts of "models" that accurately predicted the movement of celestial bodies under premise that the earth was in the center of the galaxy. One notable multi-disciplined individual begged to differ. We know what happened to him when he did.
Bottom line? I naturally wary scientific "consciences". It doesn't exist. So until the views of the educated and qualified folks who don't write for the New Scientist are addressed w/o name calling (i.e. skeptics) I think it is utter foolishness to consider the science settled. Anyone who doesn't take into account and rejects the views of qualified folks in order to establish scientific theory as consciences should be regarded with suspicion.
By the way, the loss of glaciers are non-events. It has occurred before and will occur again.
Until scientists models start predicting the future accurately, GW is going to be a hard sell.
I will agree with you that I certainly have more reading to do. However, I must say that the New Scientist is not he end all be all and neither is it a final authority. It is troubling to me that you reject papers from other peer-reviewed journals (as seems apparent in one of the responses to posts to your article). It raises questions in my mind why include some and exclude others.
Bottom line, there are too many creditable people who argue against your point of view. The most prominent and surprising is Claude Allegre, who was one of the first to warn about man-mande global warming. He has sense recanted and now considers global warming to be:
"...over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank." (see Allegre's second thoughts
I look forward to a continued lively debate on the subject.
The idea that we affected it in the first place is another example of the arrogance us human beings have. The earth is a heck of a lot more resilient than we give it credit.