Scientific evidence = fact

That's what evidence is...facts. Your issue seems to be with how I'm interpretting the facts. So let's make this debate easier and lay them out on the table.

1. The earth is warming.

2. This warming is unprecedented in recent history.

Evidence for 1 and 2

3. This warming is being caused by greenhouse gasses.

4. Humans are putting out significantly more greenhouse gasses than is natural.

Okay, so now we have the facts. If there are any of these that you dispute, please say so, so that we can debate the evidence.

The reason I brought up Democrats is because, them and the liberal media are the ones saying: "it's their fault, it's those Chevy suburban driving republicans, get them!" [paraphrasing of course]

I'm pretty sure that you have been watching way to much FAUX news. What the media is showing is that a) a lot of people in the U.S. drive SUVs (democrats and republicans, I drive an FJ Cruiser) and b) that it is contributing to global warming.

None of this, however, has anything to do with global warming.

Ignoring the hypocrisy of you saying "I'm not a parrot" and then quoting Glen Beck, I'm happy that you finally presented some evidence. My only suggestion would be that Glen Beck is not a scientist and, therefore not a very trust worthy source. In addition we have 3 hundred million people in this country each driving an average of about 15,000 miles a year. This still doesn't add up to Glen Becks numbers, but then again I'm not sure how much I trust Beck's numbers.

Either way, if a significant number of Americans conserved fuel it would still make an impact.

You are also arguing that we need to get China involved in the effort to cut back on greenhouse gasses... and I completely agree! And guess what Obama is doing?

In order to convince other nations to cut back on greenhouse gasses, however, we have to show that we are serious about it first. America should be the moral leader on all things, and this is no exception.

Also, I don't think policy, or law should be formed around such a controversial subject.

It's not controversial in the scientific community, only in the sphere of public opinion. Every major scientific body is in agreement that humans are causing global warming. Does that sound very controversial?

Now time for the website.

Obviously I can't go through every single argument in the entire site and tell you why it's wrong, so how about we do this. I'll choose a random one, and then you choose one and I'll prove to you why they're both poor arguments. Deal?

Me first:

I choose the sea ice argument, which can be read here and here.

So the argument is, sea ice in the north pole has increased back to the level it was at 1980, so therefore there can't be any warming occurring, and the whole global warming thing is a hoax.

The problem with this argument is that it only deals with the area of ice and not the volume. Take this time to look back at the website so that you can see what I'm talking about. You will also notice that it takes the readings from January, when the ice sheets are at their maximum after having refrozen. In the summer, the thinner ice melts faster, meaning that readings from the summer months would be more indicative of the overall amount of ice in the polar caps.

When we look at the volume of ice we see that the ice sheets are in fact getting thinner. The amount of perennial ice has been decreasing despite the fact that the area of ice in the winter months is about the same as it was in 1980.

The source I have is not an overtly biased site with questionable facts, but the National Snow and Ice Center. Their website is here and here is a graph from them that shows the area of arctic ice year round, as opposed to just the winter month.

I know a lot of very smart people, non of them think global warming is happening.

Well, I'm guessing that none of them are climatoligists. It's not their fault, but I'm guessing that they just don't know all the facts. Chances are they have heard a lot of misinformation from sources they trust (not unlike you). However, those smart people who do study the facts have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that global warming is happening, and that it is being caused by humans. Maybe, you can even be the one to show them that they are wrong.

So Jake, let me repeat, it doesn't matter if you're a democrat or a republican...the facts don't care about your ideology. You clearly just went to the first site you found that disputed global warming and linked to it, without reviewing the facts. Well I have reviewed the facts. I'm kind of a science nerd. I read articles and watch videos about the subject in my spare time (really geeky, I know). If you want to know more check out this really interesting youtube channel. On it, a lot of myths about global warming are debunked. Here is a from the channel about the ice sheets:

You do the exact same thing

If you would like to give me some examples that would be awesome. (For you I'd give the examples of this subject, marijuana legalization, and evolution). Also, haven't you heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right."

Which is easy to do when you are on the side of the majority

Don't complain persecution, or that you are the repressed minority. On this site each argument has the same opportunity to present the facts, and make their case. It's one thing when the issues are subjective (like economics or religion), but on certain topics there is a right answer, and what I was complaining about is the fact that you tend to ignore these facts.

Having the majority agree with one of us should have very little effect on our arguments. It's the content that's important. Maybe you should stop listening to Glen Beck and his "us vs. them" (whoever "they" are) mentality. (I know you've gotten pissy about comments like this before so let me clarify: this is a suggestion not a demand, or order)

in the internet, no body knows you're a fraud

If you do a little research it's pretty easy to find the frauds.

What if I told you we had solved global problems like this before?

By banning ChloroFloroCarbons (CFCs) we actually made the hole in the ozone (that we originally caused) smaller. We helped to save the planet once, why can't we do it again?

How many tons of Co2 do think we should produce to control the temperature of the Earth’s climate?

Well ideally we shouldn't really be producing any because the earth was doing pretty well on its own before humans began pumping billions of tons of CO2 (not Co2, that would be cobalt) into the atmosphere. However it's obvious that this is impossible. A more reasonable cut, like 40% of emissions in the next decade would be difficult but necessary if we want to combat the effects of global warming. This is also unlikely to happen, however, so we're going to have to settle with something like a 50% cut in emissions by 2050.

Are you prepared to be held accountable when we are too hot or too cold?

First, there is no way that the planet is going to get too cold. As I said before the planet was fine before us, so cutting emissions of greenhouse gasses will only put us closer to what the earth naturally should be (by naturally I mean a world without humans).

As far as too hot, that's only going to happen if we don't act.

So to answer your question, yes, I and those who are in favor of acting are readily prepared to be held accountable. The real question is, are those who do nothing ready to be held accountable when the negative impacts of climate change become more obvious?

Are you bold enough to enforce your will upon all Co2 producers of the world?

Force? That's a pretty vague term. If you mean threaten to go to war with, then obviously no. If you mean impose economic sanctions and diplomatically persuade them, then yes.

Are you prepared to regulate human breathing and farting?

This is a good example of one of the most ignorant arguments about climate change. Human breathing (and farting) causes such a small impact on the global environment that it is negligible. No one is proposing regulating our breathing, because to do so would be foolish. The real source of greenhouse gasses is the burning of fossil fuels.

Let explain this to you: A certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, and in fact plants convert CO2 into O2, so in nature there is already a system in place to deal with CO2. However, because of tremendous deforestation of important oxygen producing rain forests coupled with the dramatic increase in emissions caused by human industrial activity in the last hundred years, we have experienced a warming that is unnatural and we must do something about.

Your right...it's just frustrating when you show people evidence time after time and they still stubbornly stick to their misinformed convictions.

I never said global cooling was natural, I said that very few scientists supported the idea that it was happening.

Reading over my argument I can see quite a few mistakes in typing so allow me to try to explain myself again.

There was a period of time, during this century (from 1940-1970) that the temperature began to show a slightly downward trend. A few scientists interpreted saw this and believed that there was global cooling occurring. During this same time however many more scientists were concerned about a global warming despite the fact that there was a general cooling trend. This means that global cooling was never really accepted as a valid theory by the scientific community.

You then ask why global warming is taken more seriously. Well my answer to that is that in the 1970's, climate science was still in it's infancy. Since that time however our ability to predict the climate, and calculate our effects on the environment has increased dramatically. In addition, we have started to see a warming trend that is very much unlike the modest cooling trend in the middle of this century. Please refer to this graph to see what I'm talking about. As you can see, the average temperature has increased dramatically this century. If you want a bigger picture, see this so called hockey-stick graph which shows average temperatures in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years. Clearly, the evidence shows a warming, and not a cooling.

Finally, you ask why this can't be natural. Well, we know that greenhouse gasses keep our planet warm, and in fact we need a certain amount of greenhouse gasses in order to have a livable climate. However, when you compare the amount of greenhouse gasses that are created naturally (by organisms and other sources such as volcanoes) to the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted by humans, and then look at the global temperatures which I showed you, then it becomes obvious that what is happening is the direct result of human activity.

I hope this cleared up any confusion you had.

The internet is an amazing tool. You can find out information about whatever you want within seconds, so please do not complain that the public hasn't been educated... anyone with a computer and an internet connection can find out information easily.

Now, I think I have found one of the reasons you have an issue with GW. The source you quoted (The Great Global Warming Swindle) is an extremely poor one. Before this debate proceeds any farther I think you should watch this video debunking the intellectual dishonesty presented by the creators of that movie. You will find gross misrepresentations of the facts, and in some cases, outright lies.

Enjoy:

I never really bought the "evidence" presented by Al Gore and his theory of ManBearPig.

Well that's understandable, because Al Gore is not a scientist; however, you should listen to the real climate scientists who have shown, through tremendous amounts of evidence, that:

1. The earth is warming

2. This warming is unprecedented, and unnatural (a.k.a. at a rate never witnessed before in nature)

3. The warming is predominately being caused by greenhouse gasses

4. Human activity in the last 100 years has been the primary cause of greenhouse gasses

5. If humans to continue to emit greenhouse gasses at our current rate, the effects on our planet will be dire (massive crop failures, and extinctions due to increased aridity)

You are complaining about the money Al Gore makes from this, but to be honest, I don't give a shit about him. He helped to put global warming more in the public's awareness, but at the same time increased the politicalness(?) of the issue. His movie, was in general correct, aside from a few minor exaggerations and errors; however, as I said before none of this should matter. What matters is the actual science.

How we address the issue can obviously be up for debate, and the ideas you proposed seemed like good ones; however the important thing is that we do something. Otherwise we will go down in history as the generation that sat back and did nothing as the earth went to ruin.

(By the way, I love South Park, but this is one issue that got wrong...and I'm super serial about that)

Wow Jake, care to back up your statements with some facts.

I already argued told you this once, but apparently I have to repeat myself: THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE. The only person who is acting stupid here is you, because you are denying the myriad scientific evidence that supports the fact that humans are causing significant climate change. Whether it's democrats or republicans who support legislation to stop global warming shouldn't matter, because none of that has any effect on the actual science of climate change.

Please, when you have actual facts to support your case that global warming/climate change isn't being caused by humans then get back to me. Until then maybe you should stop politicizing scientific issues... it's detrimental to us all.

Times is not a scientific journal. They are not peer reviewed, and in fact do not represent the view of the scientific community.

At the time this article was written, more scientists were concerned about global warming despite then global cooling. Watch the video someone posted on the other side of the debate...it is very informative.

Wow, that's surprising that a reputed scientific journal would post something about an ice age...wait, Time isn't a reputed scientific journal?

The truth is, even during this brief time of cooling there were still more scientists concerned about global warming than global cooling. Climate deniers jumped on this article despite the fact that it was poorly researched, and didn't reflect the view of the scientific community.

In addition, we have much better ways of measuring the effects we have on climate then we did in the 70's.

So the answer is yes the earth does go through processes of hot and cold naturally...but the current warming is not natural at all.

Actually, when it comes to federal taxes paid vs. Federal money received it seems that the democrats are paying more in federal taxes and receiving less for their money. But don't you hate it when facts get in the way of a perfectly good generalization?

As far as why Republicans need Democrats...do we really want our schools teaching the Flintstones as a documentary?

Well, lets think logically about this. Before we are born, and when we die, we don't have a brain. Increasingly, medical science is showing us how every function of the mind is a function of the brain. To think without a brain, is like moving without using your body...it can't be done.

If we did exist in some form, before or after life, then what would we be? We wouldn't have eyes, so we couldn't see. We wouldn't have ears, so we couldn't hear. We wouldn't have nerves so we couldn't feel. And, as I just previously stated, we wouldn't be able to think because...no brain.

Now, obviously this thought scared the crap out of our ancestors, so, as is the case with any fear of the unknown, people created stories to fill in the gap. Just like people created myths about how the sun rises everyday, what the stars and planets are, and how life was created, so too did they come up with stories about what happens after death. Some thought of reincarnation...others thought of a paradise. These myths, though reassuring, are not based on reality. Reality is, when you die that's it...so enjoy your life.

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure that there's a simple answer.

I mean if you look like like a man, dress like a man, act like a man, and everyone treats you like a man, then I guess there isn't much difference.

I disagree that we need words for every new complex idea. If the situation becomes common enough, then maybe there should be a term for it, but I don't think that's what you were originally asking...an this can be evidenced by the form of debate you chose. Had you merely been looking for a term you would more then likely have created I popularity contest and not a two-sided debate.

Obviously the main incentive was to make a joke, but it appears that you still want to put this person into one of two easily defined categories. Either she's a man now, or she's a lesbian...and I disagree with that premise.

I'm not saying don't explain it. In fact you already did in the title of this debate. What I'm saying is that sometimes things don't conveniently fit into one of our predefined labels, and it's stupid to force them.

Why do you have to put a label on it?

Why can't it just be?

I agree.

And the fact that there is no such thing as a prelife, is evidence that there is more than likely no such thing as an after life.

What does this video have to do with anything?

I think comparing Obama to god is dumb (then again I'm an atheist), but the point he was making is valid. Obama is looking at the bigger picture. He understands how the rest of the world views the U.S. and is doing his best to improve that image, and show that we can live up to the values we claim to stand for.

It's good to have someone in the white house who understands that we are a global community, and, whether we like it or not, are going to have to get along.

I'm not sure I understand this debate at all Joe...maybe I'm the one whose dumb for taking you too seriously.

You're probably right, but there's no reason we shouldn't work towards peace. Isolated acts of violence may continue, but with global cooperation peace between nations can exist (at least I hope).

How Naive!

Ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the first world war (and probably before that) Europeans have been interfering with the middle east. Did you ever wonder why maps of the middle east look the way they do? Because the winners of WWI arbitrarily drew lines to divide up who would control what. That is why we have three groups in Iraq that hate each other.

As for the U.S. specifically, pick a group and I'll tell you what we did to them. Iran? We helped the French replace a republic there with a puppet monarchy. The Iranians later staged a revolution and set up an anti-western government. That's why they hate us.

How about Afghanistan? The whole reason Al Qaeda gained power is because the U.S. used them as a tool to fight the Soviets during the cold war.

And trust me there are plenty more examples. So next time you think they hate us simply because we're rich, learn some history, then think again.

You were the one who made the debate about hate leading to more hate. Surely you must understand that the same is true with violence...why are we attacking terrorists? Because they attacked us. Why did they attack us? Because we did something to them. Why did we do something to them? ect... and all the while innocent civilians get killed in the crossfire.

Should we go after terrorists and those who attack us? Yes. Should we show indifference toward human life (thus provoking more terrorism) in the process? Well that's what we've been doing, and hey it's been working well, right?

Totally! But those people over there are hiding them, so I say that we scare them into handing over the terrorists...like terrorize them or something! Yeah, let's do that.

Why not just lock your kids up in a box, this way they have no chance of getting into any trouble, or ever having to deal with reality.

That's like taking away all coins, so people don't drop them off of buildings. Such a small portion of kids send naked pictures to each other that it's pointless to restrict everyone. If you take away cell phone they'll just use computers and digital cameras.

This is fucking stupid. The laws were designed to keep adults from taking advantage of little kids. I'm not sure I understand who is being hurt in this particular scenario if the kids are taking pictures of themselves. Admitidly you would have to be an idiot to send naked pictures, but charging them with child pornography? This is a complete waste of resources. Go after the real perverts, and pedofiles not some horny teenagers.

I agree. I think that mostly it shows what has been ingrained into us by society. So long as we don't act on these subconscious stereotypes then it shouldn't be an issue.

Apparently "Joe the plumber" was on welfare at one point.

First you say:

this country was founded as a Christian nation

Then you say:

in any case, this discussion isn't about Christianity

Hmmm...that's funny, I guess you can change your position pretty quickly, huh? As for the Jefferson quotes, it doesn't get much clearer than "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." It's pretty hard for me to take this out of context.

Also, the point you missing is that the religious beliefs of the founding fathers donn't matter. They founded a nation that had a government completely separate from religion. Had all of them been Hindu, or Muslim, or any other religion it wouldn't have mattered because as the 1st amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

So even if every one of our founding fathers had practiced Satanic rituals and burned Bibles in the privacy of their own home, it would have no bearing on the constitution, because in a secular society religion is solely a private matter.

As for supposed "ad hominum" attack, I think we found another area you should study up on. My comments pertained to what you wrote. If you write stupid or ignorant things then I have the right to ridicule you for that. Had I made fun of you for being tall or blond, then that would have been an ad hominum attack because it is unrelated to the subject at hand.

So please stop saying the U.S.A. is a Christian nation, because we are not. We are no more a Christian nation then we are a white nation and a male nation (because did you know everyone of our founding fathers was a white man! GASP!). We are instead a nation that does not distinguish between any religion, race, or culture.

Wow, take a fucking history course. This is most certainly not a Christian nation. We were founded on secular beliefs. In fact, of the 55 delegates at the signing of the constitution, most didn't even belong to a specific church.

http://rolandhulme.blogspot.com/2008/03/ america-is-secular-nation.html

Do you know who Thomas Jefferson was? Our third president, and a fierce critic of religion, especially Christianity. How about we read some quotes from him?

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

And my Favorite:

ay it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

So there you have it. Not only were many of our founding fathers not devout Christians, but Thomas Jefferson, our third president was, at the very least, an agnostic.

Instead of backing up your argument with facts you decided instead to make assumptions based on your flawed perceptions of history. Please, next time you think you have something to say, ask yourself if you have any idea what you're talking about before you come across looking like an idiot.

Napoleon (and apparently I need at least 14 characters)

I think you'd like the French national anthem.

Okay, so let's say the money had to be redesigned anyway, and you were in charge of what was written. Would you put "In God We Trust"? I can understand the I don't want change thing, as well as the money aspect, but starting from scratch, should God be on our money?

I personally think it's hilarious that a nation founded on the idea of separation of Church and State has God on it's money. Hypocrisy is just kinda funny to me.

If the money had been that way since the beginning of our nations history, I would be fine in recognizing the historic value. But this is not the case. The "in God we trust" was added during the cold war, not our nations founding. Should we stop making money with the motto? For me it has to do with core beliefs, but honestly I don't think it's a huge deal. It's just money! Stuff like the pledge of allegiance is a little more serious, but I'm convinced that at this point there are too many bible thumpers for that idea to be realistic (plus there are a lot more important issues).

Once again, it's just hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Joe, I thought after the contest was over you would stop posting meaningless debates. Maybe the whole point thing wasn't such a great idea...[sigh]

So you want to go to space? Cus if so I'm for that. It would be great if you went millions of miles away. ;)

Haha, okay Joe how about this. I am against any plan that requires us to "reduce" the human population.

Come on, have some faith in humanity. We went to the moon, we cured polio, we invented a way to take shits in our houses and not have to worry about a mess. We can definitely find a reasonable solution to global warming.

This is exactly the narrow thinking that has fucked up the earth for the past 200 years. Sure fossil fuels and oil are great if you look at only the economic benefits, but in the longterm we end up with tremendous global problems that threaten our society.

There are also significant economic benefits to investing in solar and wind energy: the price will never increase. Oil and coal will only become more scarce and more expensive, but wind and solar energy will only get cheaper as the technology advances to the point where fossil fuels are today. Right now photoelectric cells are not at the level where they can adequately compete with coal. Solar thermal power, that converts solar energy into heat, much like coal and nuclear power is on nearly equal footing.

When you say "mature technologies", what I hear is "outdated technologies." In the 1980's would you have started investing in typewriters because they were "proven?" Of course not! We are on the verge of having clean renewable power and we should be concentrating on making it more affordable and efficient so that we don't need to worry about all the negative impacts of drilling for oil, and burning coal.

As for your talk about draining marshes, sure it helped get rid of malaria in certain areas, but at the same time it destroyed the habitat of plant and animal species that lived there and more importantly made certain coastal areas less protected from flooding. Look at New Orleans as an example. They destroyed some marshland which acted as a buffer for storms and the damage was much worse.

Your right, for them it's not cheap, but thanks to groups like the Gate's foundation, people who have the money can help by donating money. Secondly, DDT is not harmless. It has negative affects on both human and animal health:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Toxicity

If you have the option between solving the problem using a) a harmful chemical or b) using reasonable means that have no negative affects. Well that's a tough choice...I'll get back to you with my answer.

CFC's were causing the problem so YES banning them was the only way to solve it. If you wan an explanation of how CFC's breakdown ozone, check out this link:

http://www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/clcycle.jpg

I said "to protect from over development". Oxymoron? I know you are, but what am I?

Do you know how much a mosqito net costs? $10. That's pretty fucking cheap. As for houses, you don't have to buy a whole new house, you just mosquito proof current houses.

When you say a the large number of people produce global warming are you saying it's because they exhale CO2 or because they use electricity and cars which generate greenhouse gases? Either way, we can make it so that we reduce, and eventually cancel out the carbon footprint of even 10 billion humans! Just because you can't solve the whole problem immediately does not mean you shouldn't try to solve at least part of the problem eventually, and try hard.

Welllllll.......Let's take these one at a time, shall we?

Yes CFCs may be a good cheap refrigerant but banning them was the only way to save the ozone. In the long run this would have hurt us more.

Solar Panels will one day help us overcome our dependence on fossil fuels and will help cut down on CO2 emissions. People are going to move and expand into wilderness so long as there are no laws preventing them from doing so. Our goal should not be to stunt innovation but to create laws that protect over development of wilderness areas.

There are other ways to prevent Malaria then DDT. In fact there were serious malaria outbreaks in the U.S. south at the beginning of the century. We solved the problem by creating mosquito proof housing. This, and mosquito nets are the best solution to getting rid of malaria. Check out this video about it:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_ewald_asks_can_we_domesticate_germs.html

I agree with you that we need to think first, then innovate. By managing global warming though we are making up for the fact that we didn't do this before. We are trying to undo a past mistake. A lot of time, there will be a trade off, but hey! We're a very innovative species. We can get around these problems. Not trying to fix an obvious problem, though, is irresponsible.

Yeah, but we know that putting more CO2 in the atmosphere hurts the planet. We already took that action. Now we can lower our output of CO2. This will almost certainly have no negative affects because the earth was fine before we started fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

Just because you don't know everything about something doesn't mean you shouldn't try. We know that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming so we can certainly cut down on those. Other methods of dealing with the issue, like trying to bring nutrient rich water to the surface of the ocean to help the growth of plankton may have negative impacts on the ecosystem and should be studied first.

In general we should be doing everything we can to use alternative sources of energy and increased efficiency to help fight global warming.

Joe, I didn't realize you read XKCD, that's one of my favorite comic strips.

Yes this usually happens to me except I get the letters I P P L E S

Although there are a disproportionate amount of liberal stories on digg, that is not a reflection on the site itself but the overall politics of the users. For your information one of the candidates that most digg users support is actually Ron Paul a republican/libertarian. Also, a good portion of the stories are not political at all. Some of the most popular topics are computers, science and random funny stuff on the internet. If Joe is so concerned about this then he can make his own digg.com profile and start burying Liberal stories and digging conservative ones. It's a very democratic system.

I've seen you post on a lot of debates, and as funny as your jokes are (/sarcasm), I have to disagree with your point. Although people may not be able to remember things as well while high, I do not believe there has been any study done to see if there is actually a correlation between marijuana use and memory loss. If I am wrong then please post the study. (Also do you think that a little memory loss warrants prohibition?)

Although in a lot of cases things that are "taken or done 'too much'" end up having negative effects, this generalization is not something to base an argument on. Also you assume that marijuana is addictive when in fact it is not. Some people do have addictive personalities, but these people are just as likely to become addicted to cake as they are to marijuana. Marijuana certainly does not lead to death, and as for crime, legalization would take care of that (if you want an explanation look at the argument higher on this page by me). In addition I would like to see the study you are talking about because from what I've read marijuana is actually has positive health affects (see links). The study you quote says there's more toxins yet smoking tobacco increases you chances of getting lung cancer by 20 times and smoking marijuana leads to a slight decrease your chance of getting lung cancer. I hope that next time you post an argument you will cite your sources and not rely on broad generalizations.

I have to disagree with your comparison of marijuana to alcohol in some respects. Although it is true that being high is kind of similar to being drunk there are some significant differences; marijuana makes things feel, for lack of a better term, sillier. Alcohol on the other hand, when used in excess can lead to blacking out, vomiting and not remembering what happened. In this way alcohol is significantly more dangerous. Whereas you can die from alcohol intoxication, too much marijuana really can't hurt you. Also, most of the negative feelings associated with alcohol, such as guilt and regret, are typically not experienced when using marijuana. We have also seen what happens when you make alcohol illegal: organized crime grew significantly in major cities because they were able to make an absurd amount of money selling bootleg liquor. Comparing alcohol to marijuana in this context would be accurate. The selling of marijuana by gangs is very profitable. You say that we should go down to Mexico to smoke but I live in Delaware and if I want to smoke with my friends going to Mexico for a weekend isn't a viable option. Instead I would have to find a drug dealer. This puts money in the hands of bad people. Legalization would put a stop to this.

Finally, for someone who claims to love the USA so much you seem to be okay with suppressing freedoms. The reason Mexico is different from the US is because they are relatively poor, their government is corrupt, and crime is rampant. Keeping marijuana illegal only helps criminals, so if you want the US to not be like Mexico then you should encourage the legalization of marijuana.