Prop. 1A will raise taxes on all Californians and extend these taxes for one to two years, taking another $16 billion from you! The already approved tax increase will cost a typical California family $1,100 annually.
HIGHER SALES TAX! Proposition 1A will extend the sales tax hike for an additional full year. California taxpayers already pay the highest sales tax in the nation. This is a direct attack on all working families, especially low-income residents.
HIGHER CAR TAX! Proposition 1A will extend the DOUBLING of the car tax. This affects every California car owner.
HIGHER STATE INCOME TAX! Proposition 1A will extend an income tax increase for two extra years. Californians already pay the highest income tax rates in the nation. Under Prop. 1A, you’ll pay even more.
REDUCTION OF TAX CREDIT FOR DEPENDENTS! Californians with children will see a reduction in the tax credits for dependents, costing them $200 per child. Prop. 1A will extend this attack on families for an extra two years.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is urging a vote of "NO" on Prop. 1A, which DOUBLES the tax increase!
Proposition 1B: Provides extra funds for schools and community colleges starting in 2011 to compensate for cuts in the current budget.
Proposition 1C: Allows the state to borrow $5 billion against future state lottery sales; allows the state to change the lottery system to generate more revenue and use funds for programs other than education.
Proposition 1D: Allows the state to divert $608 million from Proposition 10 (tobacco tax for children's health care) to general-fund costs of children's health care in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2009. The amount drops to $268 million a year from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2014.
Proposition 1E: Allows the state to divert $230 million a year from Proposition 63 (taxes the wealthy to fund mental health programs) to offset general fund costs of other mental health programs for two years beginning July 1, 2009.
Hate crime -- hate is in the eye of the beholder, eh? And if you are a Democrat - you protect child rapists, but God forbid you protect the military.
Hate crime legislation will be used as a tool against the right. Period. A crime is a crime. WTF is the "hate" bias? Will those screaming for the death to Jews at those demonstrations in January be prosecuted under these laws?
Who are these people? Good is evil and evil is good. Good luck with that super majority, America.
This is really kind of mind numbing and demonstrates what is wrong with Congress.
During a House Judiciary Committee meeting, Congressman Steve King (R-IA) offered up an amendment to the hate crimes bill to exclude pedophiles from being a protected category under the hate crimes legislation.
Every single Democrat voted it down.
In the same meeting, Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL) offered an amendment to include veterans as a class protected under the hate crimes bill. Not only did the Democrats vote it down, but Cogresswoman Debbie Waasserman Schultz attacked the Republicans for even thinking veterans might need protection under hate crimes legislation. After all, who but Democrats in Congress hate veterans?
San Francisco’s May Day political rally, sponsored by a variety of communist groups and labor unions, found itself drenched by some unseasonably wet weather. Only a few hundred people showed up for what was advertised as a major event. The Bolsheviks, for example, put a tent over their booth, but even with the protection from the rain, attendance was extremely sparse . The “4″ superimposed on the hammer-and-sickle is the symbol for “The Fourth International,” or the form of communism promoted by Leon Trotsky.
In order to attract a larger crowd, the event had also been billed as a pro-amnesty rally. Despite there being no real connection between International Workers’ Day (May 1) and the immigration issue, most of the attendees carried signs about amnesty, and most of the speeches and signs were in Spanish. Some groups combined the two themes, such as the pro-amnesty socialist group seen here.
And as always, the Revolutionary Communist Party tried to come up with the most attention-grabbing slogan.
Several people in the crowd carried mysterious messages about “melting the ice.” I’m not quite sure if they were advocates in favor of global warming, or if they had some other agenda in mind.
Some took a different approach and suggested we crush the ice instead.
Down with ice!
The usual socialist literature was on sale, with some stuff seemingly left over from 2004 and 2005.
And of course the usual obsession with Jews and Israel. Par for the course.
The Rainbow coalition protested the violation of human rights by political Islam and shariah law. Though drenched in the rain, 300-500 decent and good people made their way to Times Square in NYC and stood up to the Islamic violence and oppression of free men across the world. Spectacularly diverse but unified in our purpose - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and an absolute end to jihad
My wife gets the Victoria's Secret catalog in the mail. Does this mean my wife and I are not Christian's? I guess Christian's need not be employed by businesses that make or display underwear, lingerie, or now apparently even get breast implants. The left and skeptics seem to build straw men arguments by saying what a Christian can-and-cannot do, wear, or augment -- and then attack these supposed stances as proof for their view. If they do do these false premises, they are not Christians. Here is a short "religious" answer to this:
NOT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE HYPOCRITES It is wrong to condemn all Christian as hypocrites. Christians do not claim to be perfect. If Christianity claimed to be an organization for perfect people, then all Christians would be hypocrites.Though not all Christians are hypocrites, all Christians are sinners. In fact, admitting that one is a sinner is a prerequisite to belonging to the Church. Public acknowledgment of one’s sinful condition is a condition for membership. Though hypocrisy is a sin, being a sinner does not necessarily make someone guilty of hypocrisy. The terms sinner and hypocrite are not synonyms.
Many skeptics are actually guilty of imposing a double standard on Christians. They expect Christians to hold to standards they themselves could never dream of attain. Moreover, when Christians do try and live up to these standards, they are often accused of false piety and pretense.Christians are not perfect; they are forgiven. They are seeking to become more Christ-like and Godly in their conduct. The vast majority of Christians fall into this category. They are sincerely striving to live the Christian life.
CHRIST IS NOT A HYPOCRITE When someone charges that the Church is full of hypocrites, they are really implying that because Christians fall short, Christianity also falls short. The central truth of Christianity does not rest in the performance of its followers but in the merit of its founder. Christianity stands or falls with the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, the real question is not are there hypocrites in the church, but rather, was Christ a hypocrite?
Feminists should all be out rallying around this gal for the anti-woman remarks made by her. But they are not. This fact goes a long way to show that these are not truly feminist but "feminazis." I have posted a long paper on this topic (Women & Religion) that starts out with a gnostic feminist attack on theology, and later ending with a secular critique on modern feminism. Even Bill Maher agrees that this problem (intolerance for others views) is a problem for the left.
An Example of this straw-man
One should take these arguments and apply them to her or his own arguments. This is typically what I ask others to do.
While Dennis is building his own site, fans of his (like myself) have started are own "universities" for a while now. Here are some of my links to his works:
For those visiting here, I have another audio of Prager discussing "Generalizations" at my YouTube account. I also have a section in the left-hand column of video and audio presentations by clear conservative thinkers under the box entitled, "Must See Video/Audio." Enjoy your time here. My email is at the top of this site if any questions are spawned here.
Well, that's because jokes about him are still forbidden to America's comedians.
As the Los Angeles Times' Greg Braxton wrote Monday, this breaks a long-standing tradition of comics jabbing at the White House resident as often as possible (h/t Big Hollywood):
As late-night talk show hosts and other television comics who trade in political humor know, cracking wise about the new president, who marked his 100th day in office last week, is apparently not very funny for most of the people, most of the time. Not surprisingly, to guard against a frosty or uncertain reception, TV's leading political humorists have largely backed away from their ritual comic hazing of the president, a colorful tradition in the medium, especially in its late-night time slots, since at least the Nixon administration.
I'm sure this tradition goes back further than Nixon, as George M. Cohan's fabulous musical comedy "I'd Rather Be Right" took numerous shots at then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. But I digress:
"If you're a comedian and you die and go to heaven, Bill Clinton is your president," said Robert J. Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University. "If you're a comedian and you die and go to hell, Barack Obama is your president." [...]
But it's Obama's African American heritage more than any other single factor that has perhaps frozen comics' pens and keyboards. Political humorists, most of whom are white, have never dealt with a black president and aren't sure how their material will be received. Is an Obama joke truly aimed at the office and its policies, or is it merely a smokescreen for racial prejudice?
"You don't want to appear racist," said Buddy Winston, a former writer for the "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno." "You can't do the stereotypical thing. Someone who's a Texan or an elite is much easier to attack."
Assuming this is the case, and fear of appearing racist is the problem for white comedians, shouldn't black comics -- who have made a living in the past couple of decades mocking black stereotypes -- be exempt? Apparently not:
Black comedians encounter similar difficulties in crafting humor at the new president's expense, said David Alan Grier, star of Comedy Central's short-lived "Chocolate News." "Some people in the black community see any sort of criticism of Obama as a betrayal," said Grier. "But my thing is, it's not a betrayal. It's just jokes. That's what comedy is."
Of course, not surprisingly, some comedians have avoided Obama jokes by -- wait for it -- continuing to bash Bush:
Meanwhile David Letterman, who regularly bashed Bush, has repeatedly praised the new president ("You gotta like this guy . . . by God, this guy is out there, doing stuff. He's always got stuff going on").
In fact, the CBS late-night host has used Obama to set up jabs at Bush. In one monologue, he noted Obama's recent trip to South America, where his lack of knowledge of Spanish prevented him from reading a book presented to him by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez: "It would be like handing George Bush any book."
Nice job, Dave!
Also of no surprise, "Writers and producers for 'Late Show With David Letterman,' 'The Tonight Show,' 'The Daily Show With Jon Stewart' and 'The Colbert Report' declined comment for this story." Here's why:
Contributing to Obama's kid-glove treatment, too, are the political leanings of many comedy writers. Although it didn't ultimately help Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, Winston, who wrote for Leno for six years, argues there's little doubt many joke writers are Democrats.
"You have to remember that most comedy writers on these shows are more liberal than conservative," Winston said. "It was much easier to write comedy when the enemy was the target."
It only took readers seventeen paragraphs to finally uncover what's really got the tongues of America's comedians: they're just as infatuated with Obama as Chris Matthews is.
Democratic lawmakers who spent much of the Bush administration blasting officials for letting energy lobbyists write national policy have turned to a coalition of business and environmental groups to help draft their own sweeping climate bill.
And one little-noticed provision of the draft bill would give one of the coalition's co-founders a lucrative exemption on a coal-fired project it is building.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, both of California, were among the Democrats -- then in the minority -- who slammed Vice President Dick Cheney for holding closed-door meetings to draft energy policy early in the Bush administration.
Republicans "invited energy lobbyists to write the energy bill that gouges consumers with big payoffs to Big Gas and Big Oil," Mrs. Pelosi said in 2005. "They have turned Washington, D.C., into an oil and gas town when it is supposed to be the city of innovation, of new, of fresh ideas about our energy policy."
But the sweeping climate bill Mr. Waxman and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the panel's key environmental subcommittee, introduced at the end of March includes a provision that benefits Duke Energy Corp., a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), whose climate plan released in January the lawmakers have frequently called a "blueprint" for their climate legislation.
The exemption would save Duke Energy -- along with other firms now building new coal power plants -- from having to spend millions of dollars outfitting its Cliffside, N.C., power plant currently under construction with "clean coal" technology.
"The USCAP companies must be delirious over the freebies that they've received after writing the blueprint for [the House draft bill]," said Larry Neal, deputy Republican staff director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
At the kickoff to hearings last week on the massive climate bill, Myron Ebell, climate and energy policy director for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told lawmakers, "The authors of the draft bill have invited the beneficiaries of what could turn out to be the biggest transfer of wealth from consumers to special interests in American history to write the rules for this legalized plunder."….
I love her voice, but, I fear (as I have expressed before) there will not be too many albums left in her career/life. (Click the picture to follow the story.)
"When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything" ~ G. K. Chesterton.
The left has its "end of the world" type of theology, or rightly called, eschatology. I have dealt with this before, it will be added at the end, however, this "Swine Flu" example is fitting. Listen to Joe Biden and his "mania" about something which we are being told today by experts is nothing but a regular flew season (in fact, even less deadly than normal seasons of the flu):
What did Joe do a couple of days after this interview? He hopped on a train to go home after his work day (costing us tax-payers another $250). This seems to be a theme in Washington... and as of late, this has been a problem on both sides of the isle -- although still much more prominent on the left. That is, expecting the public to fall in line with mandates, and the mandaters living above what they expect the general public to do. this is elitist. So while Gore goes around the country and world telling people how to live a life which he himself doesn't. A prime example of this is summed up in the cartoon below:
Do you understand? People are traveling around the world saying New York and Florida are going to be under water and it is now too late to do anything about it! Another figure is saying do not take public or private transportation or even put your kids in school. What Christian with influence like the current Vice President or past Vice President is traveling the world or getting on CNN and calling for drastic measure or preaching that the world will end because of man's actions?
Christians do not even thing in the worst portion of Armageddon that the world will end. Postmillennialist, amillenialist, or premillinialist Christians preach a time of a thousand year reign of Christ after He (not us) sets things right. Democrats are saying "let US set things straight" in order for the world not to end. This secular proposition by the left has come to fruition in 166 to 244-million people being murdered by utopians just in the 20th century alone (more than the entire history of all deaths by religions since recorded history). Doesn't that frighten you a bit, that politicians say in order to stop the world from coming to an end you must vote for their legislation pumped down the tubes by organizations that the co-founder of Grean Peace say are:
I don't want that pill thank you very much. Yet here we are: Cap n' Trade, Swine Flu, Global Warming, etc. Pills being pushed down the throats of the common man. This common man may wake up with a Biden in his and her living room one day controlling even your thermostat! The "Right" isn't telling people of same-sexes not to be a couple. In fact, here in California they have the exact same right in Civil Unions that my wife and I have: hospital visits, tax breaks, health-care options from employers, and the like. But that is not waht the whole thing is about. However, they will tell us that they don't want the government telling them how to live... exept about how much water to flush in their toilet, how much water can come out of their shower head, what type of light bulb to use in the privacy of one's home, or now even how low or high to set a thermostat. That isn't government intrusion... no... that is liberals trying to save the planet for their utopin dreams -- that will never come to fruition, mainly due to the Left's view of man and his nature (the below is from a larger paper I wrote in a response to friend who was going to San Francisco University of California):
In many cases, “modern liberal” positions are based on the idea of tolerance, the freedom of the individual to do as he or she pleases. This in turn is based on moral relativism, the idea that morality is relative to the individual and the situation (which distinguishes it from “classical liberalism”). Again, what is right or wrong for you may not be right or wrong for others. As a result, you cannot tell others not to have an abortion, not to look at or publish pornography, or not to live by an “alternative lifestyle.” Educational environments must be “value free,” there must be no restrictions on sexual and artistic freedom, and according to some, even activities such as recreational drug use should be decriminalized. Because there are no absolute values, each person must discover his own morality, a process taught in our schools as “values clarification.”
The liberal contradiction lies in the fact that every liberal position claims to be morally correct and objectively true. It is right to allow abortions and wrong to oppose them. Tolerance (in its modern definition) is good, intolerance is bad. Children should be allowed to grow up in a value-free environment; parents should not impose their own values. Modern liberalism takes a moral stance on every issue, but it undermines its own foundation by claiming that there is no moral absolute or guide to adhere to.
To put it into simple terms, yet once more, when a liberal tells you that you cannot tell other people what to do, he or she is contradicting himself by telling you what to do! And there is another side to the liberal contradiction. While many liberal positions are based on tolerance and complete individual freedom, other liberal positions are based on strict authoritarianism.
According to contemporary liberalism, the common good (what Rousseau called “the general will”) necessitates the suppression of individual rights when it comes to “saving” the environment, creating a more “equitable distribution” of wealth, achieving “equality” between races and sexes in all walks of life, and enforcing a strict separation of church and state. Paradoxically, that same “common good” takes a back seat to individual freedoms when it comes to the detrimental effects of: pornography and sexual freedom, reduced police power and criminal punishment, or drug use, or firearm mandates, etc..
Let me hasten to add that I too am for tolerance, equal rights, and ending unjust discrimination. I too am for freedom of speech, artistic freedom, academic freedom, and the separation of church and state. I too am for protecting the environment and helping the underprivileged. But I am for these things because I believe in the tenants of the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, not because I reject these absolutes.
If I were to reject the idea of moral truths, what possible motivation (moral duty) could I have to champion these or any other causes? More important, on what basis could I hope to persuade others of the importance of these causes? It is inconsistent to claim to be concerned about rights while rejecting the moral foundation from which rights are derived.
The rejection of one’s own moral foundation leads one to be not only immoral, but also illogical. It leads to positions that are inconsistent with themselves and each other (self-deleting). It leads to outcomes that directly counter one’s original intention and that threaten one’s own goals. It is unfortunate for the liberal agenda, but the liberal contradiction poses just such a threat. And it is not a threat from “conservatives” or from any outside source – it is a threat from within. Because of the rejection of the moral foundation for liberalism, liberalism is failing to protect the rights it claims to cherish. “What is is?” Please Mr. President!
Hypocrisy in the left is much more rampant today than any religious figure that may be "out there" in the world today.
“Congratulations to all you American media morons, you’ve got your country worked-up into a frenzy…everybody knows that swine flu goes away just as quickly as regular flu, but for you its all about audiences and profits, so you’ll hype this for all it’s worth, wont ya?”
The talk show caller was so enraged at me, he had begun slurring his words as he spit them out in rapid-fire succession. It was last Friday, May 1, and I was making another one of my semi-regular appearances as an interview guest on a popular afternoon drive radio talk show in British Columbia (the show hosts and I have a good rapport, as they jokingly refer to me as “almost their favorite American” ).
After the caller spewed his venom, one of the co-hosts deferred to me, saying “Austin, your response?”
I pointed out that President Obama and Secretary Napolitano from the Department of Homeland Security had chosen to speak repeatedly about the “swine flu pandemic.” Never mind the fact that out of a population of roughly 304 million U.S. citizens, less than 150 cases of swine flu have been identified in only 19 of the 50 states. No, no, forget that. Our government officials were “taking care of us.”
To illustrate my point, here’s a fun little excerpt from a news report filed on Monday April 27th - - which was oh-so-many press conferences ago - - by the McClatchy-Tribune news service:
“Faced with the global outbreak…the Obama administration has been relying on a member of the president's Cabinet with almost no background in medicine - Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security. Over the past two days, Napolitano has been a constant presence on television screens and in news reports, urging calm, offering reassurance, laying out the facts and the government's response to the spreading outbreak.”
That was the “news” of a week ago, when Napolitano had already become a “constant presence” in the media.
So who, precisely, is trying to “hype this thing for all it’s worth?”
And by the way, the governmental hype doesn’t begin and end with Obama and company. It was President George W. Bush himself who, in 2006, held a press conference to announce the launching of a new governmental website devoted entirely to information about the “bird flu pandemic.” Likewise, Bush’s Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff noted at the time that "the avian (bird) flu bears the potential for societal disruption of unprecedented proportion.”
At that time, the Bush gang was trying to recover from all the blame assigned to them a few months earlier for Hurricane Katrina. Recall that, in the aftermath of that disaster, it was open season for Bush-bashing, complete with Rev. Louis Farrakahn insinuating that the “white” President Bush had bombed New Orleans' protective levees so as to deliberately flood black neighborhoods.
So Bush had a political reason to “not waste a good crisis” back in 2006. And what might be the Obama gang’s reason to utilize this current crisis for their own benefit?
Well, let’s start with Ms. Napolitano. Perhaps she needed to become a “constant presence” in the media, because a week earlier she had people demanding her resignation after her announcement about pro-life activists and U.S. military veterans being on her list of “terror threats.”
Initially, when that news broke, Napolitano insisted that she “stood by” her report, but eventually ended up apologizing to a veterans group for her assertions. So what better time to be all over the national news media, “urging calm,” “offering reassurance,” and so forth? The “crisis” was certainly not wasted.
I must note here that, prior to the enraged phone caller spitting at me on the Canadian talk show last Friday, my discussions with the program hosts had nothing to do with “swine flu.” I was actually being interviewed about President Obama’s declaration that America’s interrogation of terror suspects before he took office had amounted to “torture.”
I had pointed out that the President Obama who declared interrogation to be “torture,” was the same President Obama who 2 weeks earlier had ordered Navy snipers to kill 3 terrorists holding Americans hostage at sea. Those terrorists (we called them “pirates”) didn’t have the great blessing of being taken in to custody, or being held at Guantanamo Bay Prison, or being “water boarded.” They were simply shot to death, at the order of President Obama.
My point on the show was that no President can allow terrorists - - neither teen age boys hijacking a ship, nor adults plotting to blow-up an American city - - to bully the United States. President Obama had made the tough decision, the right decision, just as President Bush had. Yet today, President Obama has so much to gain, personally, by “hyping” his indignation over a previous President’s decisions.
I understand people’s skepticism about “the media.” But we should all be a bit more skeptical about the intentions of politicians.
Dennis Prager makes mention that global warming has become more of a religion to the secular left in search for something bigger than them.Vic Boccard concurs when he said, “Now, global warming has not only become the mantra of the left, it has become almost a religion of this ilk — a large, end-of-the-world cult.”One author makes passing mention of this comparing it to the eschatologies found in Judaism and Christianity.
....The term eschatology refers to that sub-field of theology devoted to the discussion (logos) of the last things (eschatos). It was located within the field of theology because of the assumption that the "last things" would represent God's ultimate intervention in history. Today, we talk of secular eschatologies--Marxism, for example--and scientific eschatologies.
Some would argue that Marxist eschatology is part of what makes Marxism a religion. So, perhaps, the term "secular eschatology" is an oxymoron after all.
But, why the impulse to discuss the last things? Why are we curious as to what will happen at the end of time, or "after" the end of time, as if it is even possible to think of an "after" to the end of time? Why does all of this preoccupy us?....
eschatology has been part of my theological agenda since I began to reflect on theology, some fifty years ago. I recently came upon the essays I wrote for admission to Rabbinical School back in the spring of 1954. To my amazement—I was then a rank undergraduate at McGill University—they were suffused with the issue of messianism. When I arrived at the Jewish Theological Seminary, one of my mentors, Professor Gerson Cohen later to become Chancellor of the Seminary, made an off–hand remark to the effect that every significant Jewish movement had an eschatological impulse at its core....
Equally puzzling to me is why Christian theologians are so preoccupied with eschatology. Why is it everywhere in contemporary Christian theology and so strikingly absent from the writings of 20th century Jewish thinkers? Still more puzzling to me, is why our cosmologists and astronomers are so preoccupied with the question of how it all will end.... (SOURCE)
We all know of “end-time stories in religion... in fact I have a pet theory herein that is based in classic religious eschatology.Famines, weather, wars, pestilence all are found in the Bible.Not only in the Bible though, but also in secular ideology in regards to Global Warming.For instance, some “end-time statements by secularists.
What changed in the United States with Hurricane Katrina was a feeling that we have entered a period of consequences. ~ Al Gore
All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster. ~ Barack Obama
Global warming is too serious for the world any longer to ignore its danger or split into opposing factions on it. ~ TONY BLAIR
People tend to focus on the here and now. The problem is that, once global warming is something that most people can feel in the course of their daily lives, it will be too late to prevent much larger, potentially catastrophic changes. ~ ELIZABETH KOLBERT
The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe. ~ Barack Obama
We are upsetting the atmosphere upon which all life depends. In the late 80s when I began to take climate change seriously, we referred to global warming as a "slowmotion catastrophe" one we expected to kick in perhaps generations later. Instead, the signs of change have accelerated alarmingly. ~ David Suzuki
Glenn Beck:
Doom and Gloom! Scare mongering... “shock and awe” in print form. I will some generally accepted models in regards to mankind’s future if anthropogenic global warming true:
Regional Catastrophemoderate-case global warming
Global civilization not eliminated, but regional civilizations effectively destroyed; millions to hundreds of millions dead, but large parts of humankind retain current social and technological conditions. Chance of humankind recovery: excellent. Species local to the catastrophe likely die off, and post-catastrophe effects (refugees, fallout, etc.) may kill more. Chance of biosphere recovery: excellent.
Human Die-Backextreme-case global warming
Global civilization set back to pre- or low-industrial conditions; several billion or more dead, but human species as a whole survives, in pockets of varying technological and social conditions. Chance of humankind recovery: moderate. Most non-human species on brink of extinction die off, but most other plant and animal species remain and, eventually, flourish. Chance of biosphere recovery: excellent.
Civilization Extinctionworst-case global warming
Global civilization destroyed; millions (at most) remain alive, in isolated locations, with ongoing death rate likely exceeding birth rate. Chance of humankind recovery: slim. Many non-human species die off, but some remain and, over time, begin to expand and diverge. Chance of biosphere recovery: good.
This theory about anthropogenic global warming is nothing more than humanity reaching out to their own pet theories in a false belief that they are [the pet theories] actually bigger than they are [themselves]. Pascal once said that people try to fill that God shaped vacuum.I agree.
(Click Graph for Link)
