|
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!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
So in other words, according to you nobody is really trusting Jesus. Got it.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.- Dr.John Lennox The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.- Criss Jami, Killo The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him. Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You(1894).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
They may believe that they are trusting Jesus. However, there is no consistency to the messages that they claim to get. It seems that their Jesus is telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
glowby Member Posts: 75 From: Fox River Grove, IL Joined:
|
You need to back up your "mainstream scientists" prediction claims. You've lied about their positions before.
Regarding a cold Australian summer, I can't find any evidence of a recent one. Some individual towns had record cold days, but that doesn't mean the entire continent set a record. It snows every year in parts of Mexico and it's not that rare in Egypt. So here you are, trying to argue against the phenomenon of global warming, without having a clue what the term means. It isn't evidenced by a single cold or hot day in some "unusual places", nor by a freaky hot or cold season in some part of the world. Do you know what "global" means?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Our responses should be to cut greenhouse gas emissions wherever possible and practical, even if it means inconvenience and higher prices. An overview is here... Not Found |The National Academies Press This one paragraph in your link seems to sum it up;
quote: Meaning "GROW THE GOVERNMENT", and see what happens. The very rich, the upper middle class, the bottom class of idleness, none of them has a thing to worry about. Everyone else, look out!
Essential vs. non-essential use isn't really the issue. Of course not, it's all political. The upper class, and very rich, are obviously the ones using the most fossil fuels strictly for recreational, non essential purposes. They have more political clout than the 70% or so of the rest of Americans.
It's about reducing use where we can, developing technologies to make it non-essential where possible, and encouraging the use of those technologies. Electric air travel isn't possible yet. But there have been public discussions in many cities, for example, over whether their fleets should move from gas to electric. The public has also been kept in the loop on regional wind and solar projects. I see discussions in the media I follow. Don't know about your media. Some of my media questions things, like whether switching from gas to electric really makes as much sense as it seems to, since fossil fuels are often used to make electricity. The public is often kept in the loop concerning only positive things about wind and solar, and the negatives about it are often covered up. I monitor one liberal news source, it seems to be a pretty good gauge for what the rest of the mainstream media is doing.
Let the rich folks have their gas guzzling limos, yachts, and private jets. As long as the other 99% of us have cleaner energy alternatives, their selfishness won't matter much. I know that's your honest opinion - I've seen similar sentiments on these forums before. It's really appalling to freedom loving people, it's easy to see how past tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, many others, rose to power with that type of thinking anywhere near the mainstream in the societies they took over.
Rich folks' cars must be tested too. It's free for all here in Illinois, so no one is "targeted". Emission testing is more about preventing toxic pollution than making sure you're getting good fuel efficiency. But I agree that the program's time and usefulness may have passed. I haven't had a car fail since the '90s, thanks in part to stricter regulations on the auto industry. Stricter regulations resulting in price increases, making it harder and harder for people who want or need a new car to be able to buy one. In the 1950's, 60's, and 70's, it was practically unheard of for a car or truck that was 25 years old or older to be used in any meaningful way, they were simply worn out by that time. Anything over 10 years / 100,000 miles was considered a pretty good bonus in the 60's, I remember it well. Today, there are a LOT of 25, and 35 year old cars and small trucks that are still heavily relied on, there are even a significant percentage of 35 year old heavy trucks that still perform useful work. (in construction, etc.) It could be debatable just what the reasons for that is, I think the main one is simply technological increases in metallurgy. 200,000 or 300,000 miles can be expected of most new cars today, over a million for OTR trucks. As cars and trucks last longer and longer, and fewer and fewer people need new ones, the new car and truck makers marketing has gotten more and more challenging. 15 years ago, a GM employee told me that $2000 in the price of every new GM car went for nothing else but past employee's retirement. It's probably 3 or 4 thousand by now, not only for GM, but for Ford and Chrysler as well. Could one new marketing strategy be to lobby politicians to somehow increase the restrictions on the use of old ones, so they can then sell more new ones? That would increase their profits, but throwing away old, but very useful vehicles wouldn't be very good for a society that is approaching $30 trillion in debt, an additional $10 trillion in only one decade. Yes, "climate change" is useful for some, but it has very little to do with the climate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: Not according to the false Message 658, and the reaction it got from most everyone here. Then you need to reread those posts. Simply saying that all fossil fuel power plants could be replaced by other types of fuel is the truth. Someone needs to reread those posts, but it's not me. Those messages had nothing to do with power plants, they were about PRODUCTS. The public's ignorance about the significance of fossil fuels in things other than only power plants is because today's climate change alarmism covers up that information and discussion.
It was a mixture of Republicans and plant owners. Republicans threw away regulations that would have required plant operators to winterize. Those same policies also resulted in the loss of connections with surrounding states. The plant owners decided they wanted more profit, so they didn't make the changes they needed to. You are claiming that it is the Democrats fault, somehow. Care to explain? Don't mind if I do. You might remember this famous statement of Obama's;
quote: Uttered in 2008, still haunting Obama - POLITICO Coal plants, over the past several years, have closed in Texas. The reason was they were no longer profitable. They were increasingly regulated by the government, while wind and solar were increasingly subsidized by the government. After increasing amounts of those two things, of course they were no longer profitable. It's a Democrat thing, not just Obama's, to get coal plants shut down. If Texas would have had more coal plants, the recent disaster would have been much less, if not non existent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
If Texas would have had more coal plants, the recent disaster would have been much less, if not non existent.
and if they had winterized the existing plants as they had been warned to do after 2 previous severe weather events then the recent disaster would have been much less severe, if not non-existent. This is a "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me a third time after having been warned about the amount of damage a fooling could produce then someone should be getting sued for criminal negligence" situation. Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Of course not, it's all political. The upper class, and very rich, are obviously the ones using the most fossil fuels strictly for recreational, non essential purposes. They have more political clout than the 70% or so of the rest of Americans.
sounds like you're jealousIt's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
glowby Member Posts: 75 From: Fox River Grove, IL Joined:
|
You see it as "growing the government". I see it as demanding that our government help us deal with the problem, providing strategies and leadership. As we learned with COVID, a national response to a crisis is much better than a willy-nilly approach.
marc9000 writes:
No one is getting out of this unscathed except the very rich, and they're sure to find it a huge nuisance and expense. The smart ones support mitigation efforts. It's better for their ultimate bottom line and that of their heirs.
The very rich, the upper middle class, the bottom class of idleness, none of them has a thing to worry about. Everyone else, look out! marc9000 writes: glowby writes:
Of course not, it's all political. Essential vs. non-essential use isn't really the issue. Make up your mind. Essentiality or politicality. Because next you say...
marc9000 writes:
Not all rich folks are into politics. Not all politicians are rich. The upper class, and very rich, are obviously the ones using the most fossil fuels strictly for recreational, non essential purposes. They have more political clout... Don't worry if your rich neighbor's sit-down mower is gas-powered instead of electric and his yard is astroturf anyway. It has virtually no effect on the outcome. When his old Toro breaks down, his only options will be better ones. Electric ones. I'm sure the solar and wind marketers downplay the downsides. But they don't hide them. That leaves them open to monster lawsuits they can't afford. Their industries are very competitive.
marc9000 writes: glowby writes: Let the rich folks have their gas guzzling limos, yachts, and private jets. As long as the other 99% of us have cleaner energy alternatives, their selfishness won't matter much. I know that's your honest opinion - I've seen similar sentiments on these forums before. It's really appalling to freedom loving people, it's easy to see how past tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, many others, rose to power with that type of thinking anywhere near the mainstream in the societies they took over. I don't get it. I'm just talking about tolerating rich people, not fascist tyrants. Yes, the very very rich screw up economies around the world. But from a logistics POV of the climate crisis, they're not likely to help or hurt much. They'll find ways to profit from it. But so what. They profit from everything.
marc9000 writes:
The regs don't necessarily cause price increases. Stricter regulations resulting in price increases, making it harder and harder for people who want or need a new car to be able to buy one. I'm OK with paying more to help deal with the problem. For generations we had no idea that the trash we were throwing into the air would come back to haunt us. Oops! Now we have to deal with the garbage. It's not a cheap easy task. Our ancestors had free atmospheric garbage disposal, they thought. We don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
How did Obama prevent those power plants in Texas from winterizing? Please be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8561 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I thought it had something to do with watermelons in Kenya? I'm unclear.
Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
No, but it describes fairly thoroughly the differences between left and right wing thinking...at least in regards o Authoritarian tendencies. Each side tends to believe stereotypes about the other side. Except that Bob Altemeyer, the author of The Authoritarians (downloadable for free as a PDF or for cheap in a few e-book formats, plus an easy and interesting read), was not in the least engaging in spinning stereotypes about high-RWAs (right wing authoritarians). Rather, you and yours are the ones prone to engaging in stereotyping. [ Yes, we low-RWAs are also subject to stereotyping, but we also engage in much more independent thought than high-RWAs do. That is why we are so much more difficult to organize, kind of like trying to herd cats, whereas high-RWAs are so compliant that herds of sheep turn green with envy. ] Here is what Altemeyer wrote (pp ):
quote: Altemeyer, now retired, was a professor of psychology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg (AKA "The Peg"). He conducted four decades of actual research in authoritarianism, gathering data in the wild (well, from his students and their families) and analyzing it. He spent most of his PhD career studying authoritarianism and published several papers on the subject. Then shortly before retirement, he wrote The Authoritarians as a more accessible work on the subject (his articles were heavily laden with mathematics and hence virtually unreadable by laypersons) and motivated by the greatest authoritarian threat at the time, Dubya (he and John Dean have since co-written a second book dealing with Trump). His entry into this specialization was almost by accident. From the introduction of The Authoritarians:
quote: He devised and perfected that tools of his craft, questionnaires, and collected data for the next four decades. He subjected all of his students to those questionnaires as well as those of their families whom he could get to volunteer. He also conducted diachronic studies, following those students throughout their lives to see how their attitudes and RWA ratings changed over time (eg, most arrived from being insulated in their families and communities with high RWA scores, then their experience in university lowered their RWA scores, but when then they had their own kids to raise their RWA scores went up, etc). After having arrived at his subjects' RWA scores, he also administered questionnaires about their attitudes and beliefs. Thus his findings of what high-RWAs think and believe are based on his research and not at all on any stereotyping. Just read the book. It's free and it is an easy and interesting read. And despite his joking that only masochists would read his footnotes, those footnotes contain the most interesting content.
In general,however, one group believs in caring for the group (of humanity on the planet) above their own self interests. The other side does not...but not simply because they are selfish or power hungry. The Hight RWA believe that it is detrimental to be forced to arrive at a consensus that impinges on personal freedom. No, that's not really what he found. Rather, you have just offered some of the rationalizations used by high-RWAs. High-RWAs operate on a daily basis in a heightened state of fear and hate (most of that hate generated by near paranoid fear). They tend to adopt a xenophobic world view of "them against us" in which "us" is a narrowly defined in-group. In that world view, those in the out-group are perceived as threats to your very existence. A corollary that should be noted is not mentioned by Altemeyer. The limbic system (AKA "r-complex", "reptilian brain" since we share that with reptiles). That includes the amygdala which includes the processing of emotional responses (including fear, anxiety, and aggression) also known as "fight or flight" -- it is reported that brain scans of right and left wingers show the amygdalae of right-wingers to be enlarged. On top of our limbic system we have the mammalian cortex and then the primate neo-cortex, which we use for our rational thought processing. Blood flow to the brain is important and physical anthropologists discuss (at least in science popularizing) the metabolic and nutritional demands that our brains place on our bodies. Punch line: Brain scans reportedly show changes in the distribution of blood in the brain (and hence greater or lesser brain activity) in response to different kinds of situations. When engaged in rational thought (eg, performing mental arithmetic), then blood flow is mainly to the neo-cortex. When responding to an emotional situation, especially to fear and anger, then blood flow to the neo-cortex is shut down and redirected to the limbic system, to a "fight or flight" response. I am a military veteran with 35 years of service. Our most important evolutions were training evolutions (yes, Navy). Consider that military service, especially in war time, has been described as weeks of boredom punctuated by minutes of sheer terror. In those minutes of sheer terror, all your brain's blood is redirected to your limbic system shutting down your neo-cortex (any hope of rational thought). So when the sh*t hits the fan, not only do you not have time to think, but you are also incapable of thinking. That is why you train constantly, so that in those emergency situations you don't have to think but rather your training kicks in and you do what you need to do to function and to survive and to do what you need to do. How that relates to high-RWAs with their hyper-active amygdalae is that high-RWAs will tend to react emotionally with their right-wing propaganda kicking in without putting any thought into it, whereas low-RWAs will actually stop and think about things. If you are an authoritarian wanna-be leader, then you would want to gather support from high-RWAs and to suppress the low-RWAs. High-RWAs are the actual "sheeple", ever ready to follow a leader, whereas low-RWAs are more like cats whose independent thinking makes them so difficult to herd as to spawn their own meme ("like herding cats"). As Altemeyer describes it (cannot find the actual text right now) when an authoritarian leader tells high RWAs that he believes what they do, then they believe him, but when he tells the same thing to low RWAs, they don't believe him and question his motives. Another characteristic of high RWAs is their cruelty. Well, it's more a tendency to blame and want to punish the victim. For example, when a hurricane hits a red state, then everybody, including those low-RWA Democrats, move immediately to help them recover. But when a blue state gets hit (eg, Hurricane Sandy hitting New York City) then the high-RWA Republicans work to block aid to the blue state. We saw this in action at the start of the pandemic. The earliest outbreaks were in the ports of entry which are predominantly in blue states like New York, California, and Washington. So the Trump Administration, gleefully noting that blue states were being affected, did the best it could to completely f*ck up our response (including having FEMA steal PPE and ventilators from states' shipments, which led to the Maryland governor to smuggle supplies in from South Korea in a James Bond operation). In order to punish the blue states. And starting from page 20 (but also read the preceding pages): quote: Just read the fracking book already!
What would happen, for instance, if the majority was poor and needed a lions share of the funds shared? That does not sound fair and equitable to me, and I wouldn't automatically believe that Jesus would support it. In such a situation as you describe, all of society would be on the verge of complete collapse. So there would be no optimal solution to save society. Let's try an analogy. You are on the USS Arizona on 07 Dec 1941 at 0806 when the last bomb has hit it. What is the optimal solution to saving the ship? If you were in a position to help evacuate wounded shipmates, would you refuse to do so because that would detract from saving the ship which you already know is a lost cause? In their opposition to social programs, Republicans bitch and moan that it's too expensive and, beside, there are those who cheat on those programs (Reagan's "welfare queens"). For one thing, evidence of cheating on these programs rank alongside "voter fraud" in that they constitute a very small percentage. So is this the Army? If one soldier out of 1,000 does something wrong, do you punish the 999 other soldiers who did right because of that f*ck-up? I've been there in the Air Force at tech school. Since our basic electronics doctrine (BED) school was on the other side of the runway from the Keesler Triangle, we had to march there in formation. One morning in the pouring rain, one airman out of the entire formation had forgotten his raingear, so nobody could wear their own raingear. We were all punished for one troop's f*ck-up. As the CO of Reese's military school in Malcolm in the Middle would say, "Now I will leave the room so that you can all thank him." Is that how we are supposed to run a social program? In the high-RWA mind, yes. In the rational mind, no. So how much does it really cost? Watch Robert Reich's video, Where Your Tax Dollars Really Go, in which he breaks down the Discretionary Spending Budget :
Income Security spending, which includes food stamps: 6%54% goes to defense, most of which goes to defense contractors. So you want to argue that that 6% is going to destroy the economy, then you answer this one pressing question for me: What the hell have you been smoking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: Don't mind if I do. You might remember this famous statement of Obama's; How did Obama prevent those power plants in Texas from winterizing? Please be specific. I never said nor implied that Obama "prevented those power plants in Texas from "winterizing". Let's look at the quote about coal plants that you chopped off;
marc9000 writes: Don't mind if I do. You might remember this famous statement of Obama's; quote: Why did you dishonestly imply that I said something I didn't? There have been lots of accusations in this thread about Texas Republicans being responsible for the lack of "winterization" of the Texas power plants. I'd like to see some specifics on that - just who those Republicans were, and what they did to prevent the plants being ready for unusually cold weather. Actually the plants were winterized, for normal Texas winters. They weren't fully prepared for once-in-a-decade-or-two arctic blasts. Possibly because of the ever increasing "global warming" alarmism among the population and Democrats in Texas. For global warming alarmists to point fingers at Republicans for the lack of readiness in extra cold weather is pretty laughable, considering the lack of specifics shown for that so far in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I don't get it. I'm just talking about tolerating rich people, not fascist tyrants. When tolerating them means letting them set rules for the unwashed masses, then exempting themselves from those same rules , that's when they have their foot in the door to become fascist tyrants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
glowby Member Posts: 75 From: Fox River Grove, IL Joined: |
When tolerating them means letting them set rules for the unwashed masses, then exempting themselves from those same rules , that's when they have their foot in the door to become fascist tyrants. Unwashed masses? Speak for yourself! Just got out of the shower and I smell great. What rules? "You can buy it if you can afford it" isn't a rule. It's a fact of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
PaulK, you didn't participate in this thread much, your participation was pretty much in the middle of the thread only. Did you notice Message 747? You might want to check the other messages that led up to it, if you need to. But I can sum it up pretty easily; One of my opponents grudgingly acknowledged that I proved an earlier message completely wrong, and another opponent called me "a liar worse than Trump" when I claimed it was wrong. And they both got approval dots from the same 3 posters.
Maybe they approved them for different parts of the messages????? Who knows. Logic tells me one thing; SHOUTING ME DOWN HERE IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE TRUTH IS. Other ways I'm responded to all over the place here indicates the same thing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024