Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (9005 total)
39 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 881,072 Year: 12,820/23,288 Month: 545/1,527 Week: 224/207 Day: 1/45 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Posts: 2148
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.6

Message 706 of 713 (873734)
03-18-2020 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 705 by marc9000
03-18-2020 8:58 PM

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
This discussion is about domestic issues in the U.S

I realize it's been dragged off course but I have to say something when I see some sister fucking hillbilly arguing for the prolonging of slavery, character flaw of mine i know.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:58 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Posts: 1170
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 707 of 713 (873738)
03-19-2020 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 705 by marc9000
03-18-2020 8:58 PM

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
From marc9000:

The U.S. declared war on Japan, not Germany.

From Wikipedia:

On December 11, 1941, the United States Congress declared war upon Germany (Pub.L. 77–331, Sess. 1, ch. 564, 55 Stat. 796), hours after Germany declared war on the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan. The vote was 88–0 in the Senate and 393–0 in the House.

Text of the declaration:

Seventy-Seventh Congress of the United States of America;
At the First Session Begun and held at the City of Washington, on Friday, the third day of January, 1941.
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring That a State of War Exists Between The Government of Germany and the Government and the People of the United States and Making Provisions To Prosecute The Same
Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
(Signed) Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives
(Signed) H. A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate
Approved December 11, 1941 3:05 PM E.S.T.
(Signed) Franklin D. Roosevelt

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:58 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Posts: 64
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010

Message 708 of 713 (873739)
03-19-2020 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 698 by marc9000
03-18-2020 7:20 PM

Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
marc9000 writes:

Do you propose that we amend the Constitution to declare that the can by-pass the political process and dictate rules and regulations however it sees fit?

No. Do you propose that the scientific community should be ignored or distrusted when governments consider legislation?

marc9000 writes:

The calculations for the eventual death and suffering can be taken into consideration before anyone dies ...

Thanks! What a sweetheart!

marc9000 writes:

...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.

If we knew how to calculate possibilities of corruption, political science would be a true science and we'd live in a completely different world now. Sorry. There's no such science.

Facts are facts, whether they're from science labs or accounting departments. It's the job of our legislators to legislate intelligently, taking all available info into consideration and resisting corruption. If legislation (or lack of it) causes harm to the population, something need to change (or be done).

If laws, rules, and regulations benefit the well-being and happiness of the overall population, who cares which political or industrial players might win or lose?

marc9000 writes:

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.

Good call by the government. A good trade off. Thousands of lives have been saved.

marc9000 writes:

They can make estimates, (unprovable of course) of how many lives airbags save,...

The stats are very solidly provable. Obviously and painfully true. They prevent much more harm than they cause. Like vaccines.

marc9000 writes:

... 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.

Yes. People pointed fingers. The parents hadn't even fastened their kids' safety belts, or put the seat facing the right way.

Yes. It's tough for uninformed ignorant people to understand.

marc9000 writes:

There is a huge difference between free market accountability versus government accountability.

And cheers to that! Human suffering only counts as an intangible asset - negative goodwill - on balance sheets in a free market. It has to count for a lot more in government.

marc9000 writes:

glowby writes:

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?

Dude! You're the one complaining about the system! They want to do what's right in the long term for the people, the economy and the planet; and you're whining about liberties and "factions".

marc9000 writes:

glowby writes:

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.

True. Since the beginning of time. Your point? The scientific community is probably the least prone to corruption of all. They have to prove their ideas to each other and the world. In writing. With supporting data and reasoned conclusions. If they turn out to be just a little wrong, they're called out for it. Their work is revised or rejected. If they fake data or lie about methods, they risk losing their careers. Immediately. Can you think of another "faction" like that?

marc9000 writes:

What should have been done to fix it? (global warming) I've been asking that question over and over in this thread, and I'm not getting any answers.

It's because "fixing" it is impossible. The best we can hope is to slow the process we set in motion, and mitigate the cost in dollars and human suffering. Some day Earth's climates might approximate what they would have been, had we not fouled things up so bad. But by then we'll have extincted many more species, and coastal populations will have been forced inland. The dead will be buried.

You're asking the wrong question. It's, "What should be done to stop making things worse and minimize the damage?"

marc9000 writes:

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.

And we've pointed out that these products are not endangered. Many can easily be made without fossil fuels today. If fossil fuels are indeed necessary, they'll be available. No one is proposing an outright ban.

marc9000 writes:

Climate alarmists always imply that there has been lavish, unnecessary use of fossil fuels that have caused the problems.

No. They don't. They say it's mainly the use of fossil fuels for electricity, heating, transportation, and industry.

marc9000 writes:

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? ...

Again: No one is proposing an outright ban.

marc9000 writes:

Too many farting cows? WHAT?

You do understand that cows aren't fossil fuels, right?

marc9000 writes:

What have poisons got to do with the climate?

You said CO2 pollution is just a "claim by a faction" because it's invisible and undetectable. I said a lot of poisons are too. Undetectable in the water supply. So when a lab reports poisons, is it just a "claim by a faction"?

It's an alarm going off. Not that different than our smoke, monoxide, and radon detectors. And not that different than all the facts that prove we accidentally screwed up the whole Earth by spewing massive amounts of garbage exhaust into the atmosphere.

marc9000 writes:

Here's a vid that makes the case for why free markets, not government, is best suited to "do something about" challenges to society.

Quaint. You might as well tell us how free markets are best at ending wars, drug abuse, or prostitution.

Obviously, free markets helped create global warming, as did governments. Neither one functions well without the other, for good or bad. Together they can accomplish a lot. Lax government regulations played a large in creating this crisis. Setting free markets free is the stupidest possible thing we could do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 7:20 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Posts: 5305
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.6

Message 709 of 713 (873748)
03-19-2020 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 705 by marc9000
03-18-2020 8:58 PM

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Of DrJones*, marc9000 quips:

But thanks for your input, others here must be proud to be associated with your intelligence.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. And I share his disgust of the cruel bigoted hyper-stupidity you spew across this forum.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:58 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 710 of 713 (873784)
03-19-2020 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 700 by marc9000
03-18-2020 8:28 PM

Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
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.

But that's pretty much the description of you guys. You guys start with the conclusion - that free markets are the solution to all problems - and the evaluate everything in terms of this conclusion. Global climate change is such an immense danger that it requires government intervention to address it, therefore it cannot possibly be true since the sanctity of free markets cannot be contradicted. It also doesn't help that you are apparently extremely uncomfortable with making any adjustments to your lifestyle. Basically, your entire argument is an appeal to consequences.

And this is what leads you to the sciencey-sounding propaganda sites that promote exaggerated, ridiculous consequences of taking necessary action while dismissing real science as part of some conspiracy of corrupt elites who hate American values and want to turn the US into another Venezuela.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:28 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 711 of 713 (873785)
03-19-2020 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 701 by marc9000
03-18-2020 8:38 PM

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Putting aside that you continue to show a profound lack of knowledge of US history, I have to say you seem pretty blasé about the entire concept of people owning other people as property and working them like livestock.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 8:38 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Posts: 16548
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8

Message 712 of 713 (882062)
09-10-2020 12:44 AM

Maybe this will make the Right stop and think
Climate Change may Wreck Economy (Ars Technica)

A report from the Commodities Future Trading Commission indicates the climate change is already affecting markets.

Regulators "must recognize that climate change poses serious emerging risks to the US financial system, and they should move urgently and decisively to measure, understand, and address these risks."

The report, called "Managing Climate Risk in the US Financial System," was written by a group of 35 advisors from major banks such as Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, environmental groups such as The Nature Conservancy and Ceres, energy firms such as BP and ConocoPhillips, several investment firms, and experts from several universities.

They conclude that the markets are failing to take climate change into account, even though the effects are already causing problems.

They argue that it will take international action to control the problem and urge that the US rejoin the Paris Agreement.

With the Trump administration taking the opposite tack, will the voices of sanity speak up? Or will the Republicans continue their slavish devotion to Trump?

Posts: 5305
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.6

Message 713 of 713 (882237)
09-15-2020 11:08 PM

All 20 Targets Missed
Ten years ago the nations of the world gathered together and set 20 goals concerned with protecting biodiversity and lessening global climate change.

All 20 targets will be missed with only 6 of them deemed "partially achieved".

Humanity is failing at protecting our ecosystems from the ravages of anthropomorphic climate change and destruction of native habitats by human encroachment.

Humanity's impact on the natural world over the last five decades has been nothing short of cataclysmic: since 1970 close to 70 percent of wild animals, birds and fish have vanished, according to a WWF assessment this month.
We Set 20 Targets to Save Our Planet a Decade Ago, And We've Missed Them All

Humanity stands at a crossroads with regard to the legacy it leaves to future generations. Biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate, and the pressures driving this decline are intensifying. None of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets will be fully met, in turn threatening the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and undermining efforts to address climate change.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 5

In failing to even start to protect global biosystems from the rapid devastation of life on this planet from human activity we have failed to even start to protect ourselves. We have done nothing to forestall the quick and inevitable extinction of H.sapiens.

Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020