Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9014 total)
67 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 881,964 Year: 13,712/23,288 Month: 230/412 Week: 17/40 Day: 2/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16624
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 691 of 713 (873475)
03-16-2020 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 684 by marc9000
03-15-2020 7:10 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
quote:
It's actually very fortunate for me.

That your assertion was completely wrong? That’s fortunate for you?

quote:
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.

It doesn’t forbid the scientific community from finding out truths you want suppressed, which is the real point. In fact it doesn’t forbid the scientific community from doing anything, because they aren’t the Federal Government.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:10 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16624
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 692 of 713 (873476)
03-16-2020 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 685 by marc9000
03-15-2020 7:16 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
quote:
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?

Let us correct the silly misrepresentation.

“So the government is MORE LIMITED if we don’t rewrite the Constitution to let the Federal Government take political control of any faction it likes. Controlling everything they say or do.” Which is where you were going with your dishonest quote-mine of Federalist Papers 10

Scientists, of course do not make the decisions on policy. That is a political role and always has been. So you don’t have anything to complain about there, or is there any by-passing of the Constitution.

As for loss of freedom, the totalitarian control you propose is a massive loss of freedom and a massive increase in Government power. Obviously you don’t object to either. What you do object to is people having freedoms you don’t like. Like the freedom to find out that your creationist beliefs are false and say so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:16 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(2)
Message 693 of 713 (873489)
03-16-2020 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 688 by marc9000
03-15-2020 7:52 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:52 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:02 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6916
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


(2)
Message 694 of 713 (873525)
03-16-2020 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by marc9000
03-15-2020 7:16 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
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?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

-

And you get 3 approval dots?

Oh, ok, I'll give you an approval dot. Happy now?

Edited by Chiroptera, : Typos.


But [Frederick] Douglass was not gone; he was merely dead. -- David W. Blight

This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:16 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:28 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6916
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 695 of 713 (873531)
03-16-2020 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 688 by marc9000
03-15-2020 7:52 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
...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:

Message 1528 and following.


But [Frederick] Douglass was not gone; he was merely dead. -- David W. Blight

This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:52 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:38 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8445
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 696 of 713 (873532)
03-16-2020 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by marc9000
03-15-2020 7:39 PM


Re: another big oil pawn
marc9000 writes:

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.

Can you admit that it isn't the number of people but the amount of fossil fuels we are burning?

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.

No one is asking you to.

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.

Again, no one is asking you to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:39 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:44 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8445
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(1)
Message 697 of 713 (873533)
03-16-2020 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 688 by marc9000
03-15-2020 7:52 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
marc9000 writes:

Because I'm 65, and I know that Medicare isn't free. I've paid into it for 47 years.

Is private health insurance free?

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.

It's right here:

Article I, Section 8:

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Just because the Constitution doesn't mention something doesn't mean it's fair game.

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.

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.

Yes, and public schools are bondage because kids have the right to attend school. THE HORROR!!!111!!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:52 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:55 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 698 of 713 (873716)
03-18-2020 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by glowby
03-15-2020 10:42 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by glowby, posted 03-15-2020 10:42 PM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 708 by glowby, posted 03-19-2020 4:20 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 699 of 713 (873721)
03-18-2020 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 693 by NosyNed
03-16-2020 11:02 AM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
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

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:
For Frankl, meaning came from three possible sources: purposeful work, love, and courage in the face of difficulty.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 693 by NosyNed, posted 03-16-2020 11:02 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 700 of 713 (873723)
03-18-2020 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by Chiroptera
03-16-2020 2:44 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
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

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by Chiroptera, posted 03-16-2020 2:44 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Chiroptera, posted 03-19-2020 1:06 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 701 of 713 (873725)
03-18-2020 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 695 by Chiroptera
03-16-2020 3:59 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Chiroptera, posted 03-16-2020 3:59 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by DrJones*, posted 03-18-2020 8:49 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 711 by Chiroptera, posted 03-19-2020 1:10 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 702 of 713 (873727)
03-18-2020 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by Taq
03-16-2020 4:05 PM


Re: another big oil pawn
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Taq, posted 03-16-2020 4:05 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2153
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004


(1)
Message 703 of 713 (873728)
03-18-2020 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 701 by marc9000
03-18-2020 8:38 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
My belief is that government should leave traditional activity alone

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:38 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:58 PM DrJones* has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 704 of 713 (873729)
03-18-2020 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by Taq
03-16-2020 4:10 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
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 powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Taq, posted 03-16-2020 4:10 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 705 of 713 (873730)
03-18-2020 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 703 by DrJones*
03-18-2020 8:49 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by DrJones*, posted 03-18-2020 8:49 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by DrJones*, posted 03-18-2020 10:02 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 707 by vimesey, posted 03-19-2020 1:53 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 709 by AZPaul3, posted 03-19-2020 9:34 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020