Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

Yes and you chopped my sentence in half. Lets look at the entire sentence, you know, the one that caused others here to fly into a rage;

Now lets try again;

But they haven't done it by claiming that the pollution is completely invisible and undetectable by any human senses, that they only know it because a faction's precision instruments tell them that. They have seldom, if ever done that in the past, but there are new political pushes by today's far political left that seeks to circumvent the constitution by allowing the scientific community faction make political demands.

That is the claim of a faction, and, so far, a minority of the population. Other percentages of the population suspect that problems, much more serious than CO2 disposal, (such as economic crashes, including mass starvation and widespread humans freezing to death) could occur if we allow a faction and a minority to destroy human rights, some of them unalienable rights.

If the "downwind" part is detectable by human senses, then no, not necessarily. But if you'll refer to the list in Message 650, down at about the 75th item, yup, there it is, toilet seats!!!!! Looks like people in Rhode Island won't have much choice but to use their yard in 2030, when their governors command takes effect. An unanticipated problem that only Republicans can foresee?

The straw man you built is false, but what I said is not. Questioning the placing of blame, and what humans can do to control the weather and ocean levels, is different than claiming something isn't happening.

I think a better idea would be to let those who love Swedish policies to move there, and leave the U.S. system like it is. You've said that Swedish people are happy, but there are a lot of happy people in the U.S. too.

No, not if they aren't constitutional. Sweden and the U.S. both have some socialist tendencies, each has some more than the other. Sweden doesn't have many government programs that the U.S. has, and like many other countries around the world, Sweden benefits from the protection of the U.S. military, without having to pay a dime for it, unlike U.S. taxpayers. Comparing the U.S. to other countries is often an apples to oranges comparison.

From raw materials to consumers hands, there is nothing on that list that isn't completely dependent on fossil fuels in multiple ways.

There is always hydraulics involved in digging in the ground, in making steel, in paving roads and making tires. Everything there will at some point be transported by truck. A lot of steps involved in making those things involves air travel, there is currently nothing on the horizon to power air travel other than fossil fuels.

I see nothing in the news that says we're on the brink of being able to dig without hydraulics, to make tires for electric cars and trucks without fossil fuels, as only two examples. But I'm always willing to learn, can you describe, or link me to, examples of how this will be done, whether economically feasible or not, by 2030? Or is the "Green New Deal" nothing but hot air intended only to appeal to people who have little idea of how the real world actually works?

The problem is BORDERS ARE NOT OPEN.

But from a human rights and wants point of view, it would make sense to allow the cards in the deck to reshuffle. That is people should be able to move freely so everybody can be comfortable and live harmoniously.

What other faction? I never claimed there was one. If you're referring to the opposition to the scientific faction, that's not a faction, that's a free people, armed with constitutional rights, and unalienable rights.

The 10th amendment. 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.

There are processes that allow Americans to move to other countries, many countries welcome Americans because Americans often contribute positively to countries that they move to. (as one example, it's a lot easier to travel FROM the U.S. TO Canada, than to come from Canada to the U.S.) Those processes do have to be complex and stringent however, the coronavirus should make that obvious.

Fossil fuels are 62.7 percent of the energy on the grid. Natural gas 38.4 and coal 23.5

Nuke plants are 19.7

Renewable is 17.5
Wind 7.3
Solar 1.8
Hydro 6.6
Biomas 1.4
Geothermal 0.4

Renewable produce one third of fossil fuels.

So it should be possible to triple them by 2030 and replace fossil fuels.

Very possible.

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.

They're only political problems for people who are able to ignore 2 extra human senses. Logic and reason.

Those are the facts. No different than the fact that Earth is spinning. 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.

Another partial sentence...

Mine is wooden. 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.

quote:

---

I just pointed out that they were not related, after you implied that they were

---

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.

quote:

---

TDR (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is getting more contagious here than coronavirus in Washington state.

---

And what has that to do with your scientific ignorance?

quote:

---

The scientific community's effects are constitutionally required to be controlled by a political process

---

Again we see your totalitarian impulses.

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.

(Message 667)

quote:

---

The scientific community is very mischievous these days, considering it's largely controlled by atheism and one political party.

---

By which you mean that science finds truths you want suppressed. Totalitarian for sure.

Edited by PaulK, : Added reference to the message where Marc claims that the 10th Amendment enables political control of science

quote:

---

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

---

Marc doesn’t say that the first method is utterly rejected, as to the second - the real point of the Amendment is to protect against the tyranny of the majority:

Political control of science would be a scheme of oppression, exactly what Federalist Paper 10 is against.

Does anybody else remember when conservatives claimed to be in favor of limited government?

Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.