|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Yes, indeed they have. Take for example pollution of freshwater sources by toxic chemicals. It's often invisible, odorless, and tasteless. Undetectable except by laboratory testing, and the eventual telltale signs of illness and death in the population. The labs' precision instruments don't subscribe to any "faction". Neither does the science giving evidence to the fact of AGW belong to any faction. But to make political decisions, we need more than laboratory testing, we need to combine that with the eventual telltale signs, to convince a free people that something needs to be done about it. The laboratory testing is an important part of the process, but it can't be the ONLY part. People need to be convinced by more than just the faction, not commanded only by the faction.
They're only political problems for people who are able to ignore 2 extra human senses. Logic and reason. There is plenty of logic and reason in learning lessons from history, in avoiding trading liberty for safety, as one example.
Those are the facts. No different than the fact that Earth is spinning. And no different in the threat either poses.
If a majority of people insist the Earth is stationery, as their 5 senses tell them, that doesn't change the fact. In any case, the majority of Americans now accept the fact that global warming is caused by the activities of mankind and must be addressed by our government. The majority of Americans just might think that global warming is caused by the activities of humans, since the population has multiplied by almost 8 in only the past 200 years, but do you have any evidence that they see it as a threat, or as something the government can fix?
marc9000 writes: ...yup, there it is, toilet seats... Mine is wooden. Yes and it requires steel to cut wood.
But I suppose some petroleum distillates were used for the finish, and it's likely that fossil fuels were used in its manufacturing process. But this is a silly straw man argument. No one is proposing to immediately outlaw fossil fuels. Every item on your list can be produced without them anyway, even the toilet seat. 2030 is pretty immediate, considering our current inability to come anywhere near producing and transporting anything on that list without fossil fuels. Here are a couple of links I found that describe ideas on making tires without fossil fuels; Sumitomo Plans 100 Percent Fossil Fuel-Free Tire In 2013 - aftermarketNews This one is dated 2013, 7 years ago. How much progress has been made in 7 years? None? How many green tires are in use today? In the 50's and 60's, there were a lot of accidents and deaths from tire blowouts, because that era's technology in tire making was far less advanced than it is today. It took decades to get tires to the safety level they're at today. How long will it take to work the bugs out of green tires? How many people will be killed? https://phys.org/news/2017-02-renewable-car-trees-grass.html This one's a little newer, from 2017. Still no green tires?
quote: There seems to be a big difference in ideas to replace those things in the list I posted, versus the reality of being able to do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I didn’t imply any such thing. I pointed that the restrictions on wood-burning stoves were about particulate emissions. After you ignorantly rambled about heat emissions and complained that other people didn’t care about the science. I didn’t mention global warming at all. Obviously you thought that the restrictions on wood burning stoves were supposedly about global warming. And you were ignorant and wrong. What we've been referring to in much of this thread is government mandates concerning both C02 and pollution. And the scientific community's obvious willingness to constantly combine/separate, combine/separate, combine/separate in any way it can to increase it's own political power.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
The Tenth Amendment, unfortunately for you, is about the rights of the States and limits on the Federal Government. It does not empower the Federal Government to dictate what scientists study, nor the conclusions they reach. It's actually very fortunate for me. Because it does not allow the conclusions the scientific community reaches to be unlimited in the amount of liberty and money it proposes to strip from the people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
marc9000 writes: Science isn't specifically referred to in the constitution, so it's subject to the political process, just like everything else that isn't referred to in the constitution. Does anybody else remember when conservatives claimed to be in favor of limited government? So the government is MORE LIMITED if we let the scientific community by-pass the constitution and join with big government advocates and take away as many of our freedoms and as much of our money as it wants? And you get 3 approval dots? I LOVE this place!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
From your link;
quote: Do you realize that your link concerned only the generation of electricity, and didn't address at all the fossil fuel it takes to make products?
quote: https://tradingeconomics.com/portugal/imports/united-states These are all things that Portugal imported from the U.S. in 2018, probably no statistics yet on what it imported in 2019, or projections for 2020. There's a world of difference between fossil fuel use only for electricity, versus fossil fuel use to make and transport products. Is that what you're talking about concerning the claim that Rhode Island will be fossil fuel free by 2030? You should make that clear, it's not honest to claim complete fossil fuel freedom when referring only to electricity generation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
You just did it again. Humans are to blame. PERIOD!!! Can you admit that global climate change is due to human activity? Yes I can. The human population has gone from 1 billion to almost 8 billion in just a little over 200 years. So even though it's a scientific fact that the global climate has been changing since the earth has been in existence, I'm willing to agree that maybe that drastic of an increase could have something to do with the current change that the scientific community has managed to dig up. But I'm not willing to approve the extermination of 7 billion people, I'm not ready to approve people starving to death and freezing to death to appease a scientific community and all their followers that they've managed to frighten into hysteria. And I'm not willing to allow them to make ANY CHANGES AT ALL to the current way of life in the U.S. without following traditional political procedures, or meddling with traditional unalienable rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Seniors in the US are happy because they have Medicare which is universal government funded health care. Why are you against the idea of letting people under 65 use the same system? Because I'm 65, and I know that Medicare isn't free. I've paid into it for 47 years. If suddenly everyone under 65 gets it, it will be free for many of them, and it will cheapen what I get after paying into it all this time.
Can you point to anywhere in the US Constitution where it says that people under 65 can not get Medicare? I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of healthcare, the money of their constituents. Just because the Constitution doesn't mention something doesn't mean it's fair game. The 10th amendment makes it clear that if the constitution doesn't mention something, then it's subject to some pretty involved political processes. The cry of the left is that healthcare is a human right. Since healthcare is a product of human labor, then that means that SOME humans (the ones who not only have to provide their own healthcare, but also healthcare for others) are BORN INTO BONDAGE. That's not who we are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: But to make political decisions, we need more than laboratory testing, we need to combine that with the eventual telltale signs ..." NO WE DON'T! Do you propose that we amend the Constitution to declare that the scientific community can by-pass the political process and dictate rules and regulations however it sees fit?
Lab testing doesn't just determine the level of toxins, it can also help us calculate the eventual death and suffering that will result. There's no need to wait for people to start dropping dead! Sure, in most cases there isn't. The calculations for the eventual death and suffering can be taken into consideration before anyone dies, alongside the calculations of possibilities of corruption, of what companies will be destroyed by new political action, what companies (and politicians) will stand to benefit greatly from new political action, etc. As only one example, government mandated airbags sometimes kill children and small adults. It's considered, by the government, to be a worthwhile trade-off. They can make estimates, (unprovable of course) of how many lives airbags save, and they can point fingers at parents every time a child is killed. If we don't like it, if we don't agree with them, that's just tough for us. There is a huge difference between free market accountability versus government accountability.
What freedoms do you have to sacrifice, for people to be forbidden to poison one another? The system we have works just fine. If you don't agree, what would your solution be?
No one needs to be convinced that murder is bad. You wouldn't hesitate to condemn terrorists for poisoning a municipal water supply. But if a corporation does it, maybe it's OK because ... liberties? No. But a possibly corrupt faction can't make knee-jerk decisions concerning political action.
Yes, polls say most Americans see global warming as a threat. No, there's no reason to think governments can "fix" it. The time for fixing it is long past, largely because of twisted ideologies like yours. We can only mitigate the cost, in dollars and human suffering, by reducing the severity of the problem. What should have been done to fix it? I've been asking that question over and over in this thread, and I'm not getting any answers. I've pointed out how the population has increased, I've pointed out the necessary products that are only available through fossil fuel use, that would cause enormous problems if they were banned by government. Climate alarmists always imply that there has been lavish, unnecessary use of fossil fuels that have caused the problems. Which ones should have been banned long ago? Auto racing? Pleasure boating? Major sporting events? The antique auto industry? Michael Bloomberg's 72 gallon per hour helicopter? Too many farting cows? WHAT?
The average American is oblivious to the toxicity level of various poisons, and all the reasons we got ourselves into this mess with the climate. What have poisons got to do with the climate? Has the scientific community declared CO2 to be a poison now, even though we need it to live?
But as a primary source of energy, we got burned. It ended up screwing up the whole planet. We have to face that now and do something about it. Here's a vid that makes the case for why free markets, not government, is best suited to "do something about" challenges to society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: Because I'm 65, and I know that Medicare isn't free. I've paid into it for 47 years. If suddenly everyone under 65 gets it, it will be free for many of them, and it will cheapen what I get after paying into it all this time. If your care and concern for future generations didn't tell us just what kind of person you are this sure does. Well, thanks for the compliment, I'm glad that you, like me, understand the foundations of the U.S. government, the intent of the framers, and what makes America great. If future generations have the same general responsibilities of past generations, they can do comparisons with the 'closed book' of past generations lives with what they hope for themselves, and take note of both the successes and hardships that history shows them, and make adjustments as they see fit. Difficulty / adversity builds character. Receiving free stuff does not. Past generation's providing of their own health care has always been woven into the fabric of American life, in many ways that those on the far left don't think of, or understand. As one example, part-time jobs have seldom ever provided health care for employees. But there's one that does in many states, and that's the part-time school bus driver. It gives one with a 4 hour a day job access to the same state-run health care plan that teachers and other full time employees get. In my area, many housewives do that job, and that often gives their self-employed husband, and their entire families decent coverage. The pay is pretty lousy, but the medical coverage makes it worth it. If healthcare becomes free for all, then many of them will quit, and do nothing all day. The only way then to get drivers will be to pay them much more, at expense of the taxpayer.
If your care and concern for future generations didn't tell us just what kind of person you are this sure does. Yes, I'm concerned not only about myself, but all those 65 and older, who prefer the current system that many consider the finest in the world, rather than the free for all system that will have doctors and hospital workers overworked, underpaid, exhausted, and angry, who are far more likely to carelessly leave surgical instruments inside our bods. It would give a new, stabbing pain after surgery a whole new meaning. Here is a link that summarizes the basics of what makes people happy; Viktor Frankl on the Human Search for Meaning – The Marginalian A life of meaning is what makes people content and happy, receiving free stuff does not. The housewife in my example above feels more meaning if she's doing that job and providing her family with healthcare. If she's home watching television all day, she doesn't feel meaning nearly as well. Today's world seems to show us that idleness increases frustration, and jealousy. And the remedy of more idle people to get satisfaction seems to be to demand more and more free stuff, from others that they are jealous of.
quote: Idleness, hatred of Trump, and free stuff don't seem to be doing the trick. The successes of the U.S. over 200 + years prove it clearly. I'm glad the founders, you, me, and your 2 green dot providers understand that. I trust that I can count on you three to pull the Trump lever this coming November.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
The scientific community isn't an organization that has any ability to set policy and collect taxes. It consists of individual researchers working at individual independent institutions to investigate and understand how the world works using methods that have been developed over the last 500 years and shown to be remarkably effective in increasing our knowledge about the physical world. But it needs money to operate, and it's going to study those things that those who fund it WANT it to study, and if there's no money in studying other things, they won't get study. Those who fund it want a return on their investment, and often get it with an increase in the size and scope of government.
It belongs to our elected and appointed officials to set policy and decide how to fund those policies. One would hope that the policies are informed by the best information provided by the scientific community. And also equally informed by human history, past examples of corruption, and the tendencies that factions can have for starting with a conclusion, then working backwards, upside down, however they have to work to arrive at the desired conclusion.
It is the obligation of the politicians to also take into account the legal, ethical, and social issues in setting policies, but they should be forthright about it. And they are for the most part. Climate change alarmism is saturated throughout one political party, and practically non-existent in the other. Enough people suspect that climate change is little more than a power grab, and U.S. politics reflect it.
If politicians feel that water shortages, agricultural failures and mass starvation, mass extinctions, and ever severe pandemics are things they're comfortable allowing to happen, they should just say that instead of trying to blame the messengers for pointing out these things are going to happen. Here's some documentation of past failed scientific predictions; Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute Why should we believe them now? One sided political predictions are not science.
If politicians feel that their ideology does not allow regulations on businesses no matter how dangerous their activities are, they should be honest about it and not deny when the evidence shows those activities are indisputably dangerous. If the scientific community feels that politicians aren't making the right political decisions, even though they're told that the decisions they want could be devastating to economics, a subject they know nothing about, shouldn't they be honest that they don't know everything? Shouldn't they look at actual videos of people in Venezuela eating rats and pet dogs?
Oh, ok, I'll give you an approval dot. Happy now? Thanks, but not really, the last thing in this world I seek is approval dots at this place. But I still can't figure this out;
Does anybody else remember when conservatives claimed to be in favor of limited government? In what way do I show a favor of an expansion of government in this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: ..then that means that SOME humans (the ones who not only have to provide their own healthcare, but also healthcare for others) are BORN INTO BONDAGE. In case anyone didn't get marc's joke, I'll remind people that about a year ago marc was writing apologetics for the Southern slave owners' secession from the US and the "heroes" who fought for them: Not a joke, not inconsistent. The two key words for you are government meddling. If the government wouldn't have meddled in 1860, an increasing disdain for slavery would have ended it a few decades later, and an awful war could have been avoided. My belief is that government should leave traditional activity alone, and let free markets and shifts in public opinion make things right. The government could have made SLIGHT shifts in policy, following public opinion and proper application of the Constitution, like taxing slave purchases more, creating incentives for farms that didn't use slaves etc. Slavery would have been completely gone by 1900. This goes along perfectly with leaving traditional activity alone, when it comes to forcing new labor into the lives of doctors and taxpayers, on brand new "human rights" that don't actually exist, according to U.S. foundings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Can you admit that it isn't the number of people but the amount of fossil fuels we are burning? If you admit that you believe that SOME fossil fuel use is lavish and unnecessary. And if you could LIST the uses of fossil fuel that you think are unnecessary. Auto racing? Pleasure boating? Major sporting events? The antique auto industry? Michael Bloomberg's 72 gallon per hour helicopter? Too many farting cows? WHAT?
No one is asking you to. What are you asking? Why are the nuts and bolts details of the remedies for climate change always such a secret?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Is private health insurance free? NOTHING is free.
It does mention that Congress has the power to collect taxes and spend that money through the legislative process. That would cover universal federally funded healthcare. Do you believe this interpretation of yours was the intent of the framers? 10th Amendment;
quote: The subject of healthcare was not delegated. The last word "people" seems to mean "people", not a congressional guess as to what the people want.
Yes, and public schools are bondage because kids have the right to attend school. THE HORROR!!!111!!!! Public schooling has been a state issue for well over 100 years. Recent meddling by the federal government in education not withstanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
right and we should have just left Nazi germany to it's traditional behavior of anti-semetism, after all eventually Hitler would have run out of Jews to murder and there wouldn't have to have been a war. Why should we care about thousands of people born into bondage if it saves the lives of a few good old southern pig fuckers. This discussion is about domestic issues in the U.S. The U.S. declared war on Japan, not Germany. But thanks for your input, others here must be proud to be associated with your intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Hmmm, you've responded to a message of mine that's almost a year old. I suspect I know what inspired that, the recent catastrophic failure of wind and solar power in Texas, the experimental solar and wind power that no one anticipated wouldn't work well when subjected to unusually cold, cloudy weather. Your political doubling down, your increased hostility when faced with an embarrassing setback of a liberal policy that didn't go as planned.
I understand. But before I can address anything else you've said, I'd have to ask that you, or any of my other 9 or 10 opponents in this thread, would address a major point that I made back in my Message 686. It got no specific response at all, but it clearly inspired a few rule-breaking insults. Let me describe what led up to that unanswered message of mine; In Message 650, directed at no one in particular, I showed a list of over 100 common products that I claimed couldn't be produced without fossil fuels in some point of their production and distribution. In Message 658 a response to that message said that all of them could be produced without fossil fuels, and that message got 2 approval dots. In Message 665, I asked (in a respectable way) to show me, that I'm always willing to learn. Then in Message 677 he described Portugal as being 100% renewable. But his links showed that was only in electricity generation, it didn't involve the products that I described. I pointed that out in Message 686, complete with a link that showed Portugal still imports many products from the U.S. that are produced with fossil fuels. That message got no responses. The world can't do without those products. It's not logical to condemn a method of energy if there are no alternative methods. Technology for wind and solar seems to have plateaued, only minor changes in weather can seriously inhibit their ability to produce any energy at all, and even when doing all that's expected of them in good weather, they can't replace fossil fuels in the manufacture and transport of products. Here's that list again; SolventsDiesel fuel Motor Oil Bearing Grease Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats Upholstery Sweaters (that explains the itchy sweater I have at home) Boats Insecticides Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes Cassettes Dishwasher parts Tool Boxes Shoe Polish Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape CD Player (do people still have these?) Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap (that explains why soap doesn’t clean oil off your hands) Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician’s Tape Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses (I thought they were made from glass) Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs Combs CD’s & DVD’s Paint Brushes Detergents Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste (Yuck) Gasoline Now, if you'll pick ANY ONE thing there, and show me (links would be nice) how it can be produced without fossil fuels, we can discuss it. But for the past year, all I've seen in response to it is messages from the EvC kidde corps, like Message 706 and Message 709. If we only have a breaking of forum rule #10, with moderators who can't seem to police it, then my work in this thread is done. Also wouldn't hurt your chances of more discussion with me if you'd respond to Message 702 and Message 704.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024