12 coaches online • Server time: 06:25
* * * Did you know? There are 428532 active teams in FUMBBL.
Recent Forum Topics  Increasing the max R... | No seasons! - Open P... | All Star Bowl!!! |
2017-06-02 09:01:23
43 votes, rating 3.3
43 votes, rating 3.3
Trump makes America great again !!! woooohooo !
Hey !
I would like to say a big thank you to the Americans who voted for Trump!
Thanks to them our children will grow in a better world, i am sure they are all proud of their choice!
Special mention: the people of Bangladesh currently in the process of forced emigration will come to settle on the lawns of the White House, thank you for providing a lunch to welcome them, and a little room.
THANK YOU SO MUCH MR PRESIDENT !!! :D :D :D
I would like to say a big thank you to the Americans who voted for Trump!
Thanks to them our children will grow in a better world, i am sure they are all proud of their choice!
Special mention: the people of Bangladesh currently in the process of forced emigration will come to settle on the lawns of the White House, thank you for providing a lunch to welcome them, and a little room.
THANK YOU SO MUCH MR PRESIDENT !!! :D :D :D
Comments
Posted by FRSHMN on 2017-06-02 10:30:07
I guess there is a new "Iron Curtain"-era. But this time, America will be on the wrong side of it... trapped and isolated... in Pittsburgh :D
Posted by Burnalot on 2017-06-02 11:02:28
I would like to thank you for mentioning this very important thing on a site dedicated to orcs and elfs playing a mockery of american football.
Posted by Medon on 2017-06-02 11:22:46
It will probably take four years to negotiate the exit conditions and hopefully the American citizens have grown some brains by then so they can elect someone else to immediately sign it again
Posted by fertfert on 2017-06-02 12:12:16
THEY ARE ALREADY TRAPPED AND ISOLATED
i was recently in detroit and some other places around, omg, omfg,
gl to all us citizens who arent agree with donald..........
i was recently in detroit and some other places around, omg, omfg,
gl to all us citizens who arent agree with donald..........
Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2017-06-02 12:50:32
Doooooom, doooooooom, dooooooom! :p
Posted by mekutata on 2017-06-02 14:06:00
it's like constant rolling snakes.
Posted by Guardikai on 2017-06-02 15:42:02
Dubs again!
Posted by MenonaLoco on 2017-06-02 16:05:32
This post contaminates this hobby-site!
Posted by pythrr on 2017-06-02 18:02:30
SWIM ALL MENS
Posted by fidius on 2017-06-02 18:04:31
Trump's an ass. But he's right to withdraw from Paris. And no one suffers more from this hysterical CO2 nonsense than third world nations like Bangladesh. Have you read the "Accord"? It's laughable.
Posted by Kondor on 2017-06-02 19:06:53
Your welcome. I often wish he would keep him mouth shut, but his actions are why I will vote for him again. Withdrawing from the Paris Accord, freezing federal hiring, trying to slow illegal immigration, and appointing conservative supreme court justices. These are what I voted for.
Posted by Azure on 2017-06-02 19:31:57
Well, the Paris Accord is 27 pages long with lots of vague terms. What it actually means is hard to understand (for me at least).
However, two things - (1) some people have mentioned how it is not fair to all countries...I see no reason to have to agree to something just because of peer pressure if it is not fair to all involved; and (2) our president should not be the one signing or withdrawing from the accord - it should be up to the Congress.
I am unhappy how the president has seized greater and greater power in the last decade instead of having the congress making the laws and decisions.
However, two things - (1) some people have mentioned how it is not fair to all countries...I see no reason to have to agree to something just because of peer pressure if it is not fair to all involved; and (2) our president should not be the one signing or withdrawing from the accord - it should be up to the Congress.
I am unhappy how the president has seized greater and greater power in the last decade instead of having the congress making the laws and decisions.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-02 19:37:46
It's a sad day for humanity, when people are going to ignore a stark warning from scientists that have dedicated their lives to studying the global climate, because it isn't convenient for them. It's a good thing our grandparents didn't decide not to fight Hitler because it 'wasn't convenient' ...
Posted by Cloggy on 2017-06-02 19:49:50
Simply shocking that there are still people who would vote for this fool again. I could understand voting AGAINST Hillary quite well, but thinking Trump is doing a good job is incomprehensible to me.
Posted by Azure on 2017-06-02 20:08:43
To be clear, I do not understand the Paris Accords very well. However, not wanting to be part of them does not mean the same thing as not believing in global warming. It is a classic problem with common goods - everyone suffers from pollution, but it is hard to get people to pay for it. What is even more difficult is getting an agreement that is fair to everyone.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to be for controlling CO2 emissions, being against global warming - but also saying that the Paris Accords are not the correct means of fixing the problem.
I just would caution that equating the Paris Accords with the only correct way of solving global warming is narrow-minded.
There are a lot of issues on how to pay and prevent global warming - and different philosophies of who pays effects countries differently. To say that there is one "right way" that obviously everyone should be fine with is just plain stupid. One fundamental question is do countries pay for CO2 emissions from the past or not? Are countries responsible for what they have polluted in the past? Obviously different countries will answer differently - and I would submit there is no "right" answer. Hence, there is no accord that is going to be right or correct - it depends on which countries have the bargaining power and force other countries to agree to their terms. Blindly accepting the Accords as perfect - which it seems most people do, is the most frightening aspect of this debate.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to be for controlling CO2 emissions, being against global warming - but also saying that the Paris Accords are not the correct means of fixing the problem.
I just would caution that equating the Paris Accords with the only correct way of solving global warming is narrow-minded.
There are a lot of issues on how to pay and prevent global warming - and different philosophies of who pays effects countries differently. To say that there is one "right way" that obviously everyone should be fine with is just plain stupid. One fundamental question is do countries pay for CO2 emissions from the past or not? Are countries responsible for what they have polluted in the past? Obviously different countries will answer differently - and I would submit there is no "right" answer. Hence, there is no accord that is going to be right or correct - it depends on which countries have the bargaining power and force other countries to agree to their terms. Blindly accepting the Accords as perfect - which it seems most people do, is the most frightening aspect of this debate.
Posted by Gozer_the_Gozerian on 2017-06-02 20:11:21
The sad thing is that even if Trump were to be impeached over the current scandals he is embroiled in, he would be replaced by Mike Pence, a guy who calls his wife 'mother.' *SHUDDER*
Posted by Azure on 2017-06-02 20:18:18
My father referred to my mother the same way when growing up. It is quite common in farming culture. Just because someone is different than you...you react with a shudder and fear? That is quite sad.
Posted by fivehead on 2017-06-02 20:25:55
Do we really need a blog post like this on the site? I don't care what your political beliefs are, but the last thing we need in a friendly community site like this are political disputes. I think it's in everyone's best interest that we leave topics like this alone, but I suppose that's really up to the rest of you.
Posted by Jeffthejar on 2017-06-02 20:33:38
I (try) to stay away from political topics on non-political sites, but I have to say that I think it's a bit of an interesting sign when, even on a specifically non-political site like this, there are so many to say a similar thing.
If an anti-Trump blog was posted even just a month or so ago on fumbbl, I feel like there's a great chance it gets down-voted into oblivion and removed from the list of recent blog posts.. but here we are, 25 votes and a rating of 3.7.
I just find that interesting, is all.
If an anti-Trump blog was posted even just a month or so ago on fumbbl, I feel like there's a great chance it gets down-voted into oblivion and removed from the list of recent blog posts.. but here we are, 25 votes and a rating of 3.7.
I just find that interesting, is all.
Posted by Gozer_the_Gozerian on 2017-06-02 22:45:26
@Azure: Yes, Mike Pence scares me, and in more ways than that. From what you say, it sounds like Freud would have a field day down on the farm.
Posted by Nightbird on 2017-06-02 22:50:50
****Beep, bee-de-beep****News bulletin***Please put down your crayons & stop petting your puppies***
Now I wasn't initially a Trump guy, but I became one in the end & I'm glad for it. So lets take a peek at this. Maybe .2% of a degree, MAYBE, in the next 83 years! Yes, lets just bankrupt our economies & countries based off of manipulated, agenda driven science that has NEVER yet been right. Lets spout 'doom & gloom' across all airwaves to make sure we get the whole worlds sheeple in a panic that the world will end tomorrow even though we know it won't. This is all part of the leftist/globalist agenda to manipulate, control & secure power over what they think are their 'serfs' or lessers, as well as gain a foothold in attempting to steer America policy to their liking. And lets make the American taxpayers bear the brunt of the costs of this treaty even though it was signed w/out being ratified by congress & against the will of the American people. Lets also not forget Al Gores, when he's not hunting Man-Bear-Pig, dire predictions that have yet to come to pass as well as all the others that were wrong too! Lets also not forget, too, that there were plenty of Dems that did NOT support this when it was signed, but now, all of the sudden, they support it. ROFL. OH the hypocrisy is thick here in the ol' US of A. Really people, the histrionics are getting to be a bit much. Wake up while you can, live in the real world & put your fantasy land games back in their boxes. Utopia DOES NOT EXIST. And it never will. Bravo to you Mr. President, Bravo. MAGA!
****Thank you. You may now return to your safe spaces & crayons****
Now I wasn't initially a Trump guy, but I became one in the end & I'm glad for it. So lets take a peek at this. Maybe .2% of a degree, MAYBE, in the next 83 years! Yes, lets just bankrupt our economies & countries based off of manipulated, agenda driven science that has NEVER yet been right. Lets spout 'doom & gloom' across all airwaves to make sure we get the whole worlds sheeple in a panic that the world will end tomorrow even though we know it won't. This is all part of the leftist/globalist agenda to manipulate, control & secure power over what they think are their 'serfs' or lessers, as well as gain a foothold in attempting to steer America policy to their liking. And lets make the American taxpayers bear the brunt of the costs of this treaty even though it was signed w/out being ratified by congress & against the will of the American people. Lets also not forget Al Gores, when he's not hunting Man-Bear-Pig, dire predictions that have yet to come to pass as well as all the others that were wrong too! Lets also not forget, too, that there were plenty of Dems that did NOT support this when it was signed, but now, all of the sudden, they support it. ROFL. OH the hypocrisy is thick here in the ol' US of A. Really people, the histrionics are getting to be a bit much. Wake up while you can, live in the real world & put your fantasy land games back in their boxes. Utopia DOES NOT EXIST. And it never will. Bravo to you Mr. President, Bravo. MAGA!
****Thank you. You may now return to your safe spaces & crayons****
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-02 23:06:11
@Nightbird: firstly, it was 0.2 degrees, not 0.2% of a degree. Secondly, that figure was highly cherry-picked. Even the team that did that research say that it was at the most extremely optimistic end of the possible range.
Yeah, I guess we should be listening to you, as opposed to the hundreds of world-renowned scientists who have spent their lives researching the subject. Clearly you know better.
It will also become very clear that this whole thing is a global conspiracy to damage the US, when the rest of the world go ahead with implementing the Paris accord anyway ... exactly what you'd expect in that case, right? ;)
Yeah, I guess we should be listening to you, as opposed to the hundreds of world-renowned scientists who have spent their lives researching the subject. Clearly you know better.
It will also become very clear that this whole thing is a global conspiracy to damage the US, when the rest of the world go ahead with implementing the Paris accord anyway ... exactly what you'd expect in that case, right? ;)
Posted by licker on 2017-06-02 23:48:36
It's not even an issue of what Paris meant.
It's an issue of how ridiculous the lies Trump has spouted for why he is leaving it.
Seriously, take a look at his reasoning, it's utterly disgusting that he simply spouts that much nonsense and falsehood and people choose to ignore, or worse, accept, those statements at face value.
@Azure...
If you don't know what the Paris Accord says then maybe you shouldn't be spouting off assumptions about what it might say.
Since you know... it doesn't really say any of the stuff you are imagining.
It's an issue of how ridiculous the lies Trump has spouted for why he is leaving it.
Seriously, take a look at his reasoning, it's utterly disgusting that he simply spouts that much nonsense and falsehood and people choose to ignore, or worse, accept, those statements at face value.
@Azure...
If you don't know what the Paris Accord says then maybe you shouldn't be spouting off assumptions about what it might say.
Since you know... it doesn't really say any of the stuff you are imagining.
Posted by fidius on 2017-06-03 00:16:35
Here are the key graphs of Paris. The green lobby calls this a "law". Obama signed it without Congress approval so it has no legal authority. You be the judge:
1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.
2. Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions.
3. Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.
4. Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.
And then there's this:
5. Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.
What Paris is is a way for politicians to signal their virtue to their constituents. In reality it's 100% hot air.
1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.
2. Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions.
3. Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.
4. Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.
And then there's this:
5. Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.
What Paris is is a way for politicians to signal their virtue to their constituents. In reality it's 100% hot air.
Posted by Azure on 2017-06-03 00:17:00
@licker...
I looked up the UN webpage and looked at the 27 page document for the Paris Accord - however, it seems to not really explain how the countries will be paying for it.
I understand the basic issues at stake and I can not find any actual information as to how they are trying to solve it.
Since you are stating what the Paris Accord is about - perhaps you could provide more information than the 27 page document that is up on the UN site. Where did you get your information from?
The problem with most of these debates is a truly sad lack of actual information.
I looked up the UN webpage and looked at the 27 page document for the Paris Accord - however, it seems to not really explain how the countries will be paying for it.
I understand the basic issues at stake and I can not find any actual information as to how they are trying to solve it.
Since you are stating what the Paris Accord is about - perhaps you could provide more information than the 27 page document that is up on the UN site. Where did you get your information from?
The problem with most of these debates is a truly sad lack of actual information.
Posted by Balle2000 on 2017-06-03 00:41:30
@Azure If you worry about the increasing power of the POTUS, this has been happening since Rooseveltduring WW2. If you want to know more, I recommend a podcast called:
Has the U.S. Presidency Become a Dictatorship?
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/u-s-presidency-become-dictatorship/
Date September 21, 2016
"Obama himself made the Iran agreement and the Paris agreement on climate change without the involvement of the Senate, even though the Constitution says the Senate’s supposed to be involved in treaties."
Has the U.S. Presidency Become a Dictatorship?
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/u-s-presidency-become-dictatorship/
Date September 21, 2016
"Obama himself made the Iran agreement and the Paris agreement on climate change without the involvement of the Senate, even though the Constitution says the Senate’s supposed to be involved in treaties."
Posted by koadah on 2017-06-03 00:48:39
"Mother"?
As in mother of your children?
As in mother of your children?
Posted by Zlefin on 2017-06-03 01:12:18
this blog sohuld be force-deleted in its entirety. I don't come to fumbbl to have deal with this kind of idiotic nonsense. I don't want politics messing up my fumbbl. it should be verboten.
Posted by mekutata on 2017-06-03 14:01:57
but one anti trump posting per day is haelthy
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-03 14:23:14
Re. Azure and fidius, talking about the Paris accord being a bad deal: it may not be 'perfect', I agree. But, what deal between almost 200 independent countries is ever going to be perfect? The thing is, it's taken the world over 10 years (maybe more?) to agree this deal. We don't have endless time to keep talking and renegotiating - the Earth's climate isn't going to wait for that. Every year that slips by will only make the problem more difficult to address.
The time to act is now. This is the only deal we are going to have and it is our only chance to prevent catastrophic climate change. Azure, you talk about 'fairness' - what about fairness to future generations? History will judge Trump and those that voted for him harshly.
The time to act is now. This is the only deal we are going to have and it is our only chance to prevent catastrophic climate change. Azure, you talk about 'fairness' - what about fairness to future generations? History will judge Trump and those that voted for him harshly.
Posted by neubau on 2017-06-03 15:46:17
observing from a safe distance the state of the american democracy is mind boggling, i literally cant understand how so many people can support this bad joke of a president. that words like "virtue signaling", "globalist elite" and "leftists" (did anyone ever hear rightists?) are used in the pro trump answers shows how great the extreme right wing propaganda works in america, its really scary.
dropping out of the paris agreement is trumps first action that might have dire consequences for the whole planet, i think it is important to speak out against this disgrace. rated 6.
dropping out of the paris agreement is trumps first action that might have dire consequences for the whole planet, i think it is important to speak out against this disgrace. rated 6.
Posted by finsterface on 2017-06-03 16:45:06
I think everyone should be able to freely speak his mind, no matter if it's for or against Trump or any other authority - as long as they don't violate someone's personal rights. And I don't think there should have to be much concern about whether or not others like it - I mean it's politics (and thereby debateable by definition) and why should politics not be something you post in a blog? Like we don't have blogs about car-races, dead children due to mistreatment and whatnot (not disrespecting those blogs)? Why is it, that people speak up, only when someone posts their opinion about Trump? Is it, maybe, because the internet is a rigged internets-media? ;)
I, personally, don't like to engage in detailed online-discussions about political views & I've never read those 27 pages you guys are talking about. I sure think, that trump is great, though! Great for the arts! They finally have an abundant source of inspiration! :))
Like when I was lacking inspiration for my dislikeable dwarf - what would I have done without trump?: https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=876948 :P
I, personally, don't like to engage in detailed online-discussions about political views & I've never read those 27 pages you guys are talking about. I sure think, that trump is great, though! Great for the arts! They finally have an abundant source of inspiration! :))
Like when I was lacking inspiration for my dislikeable dwarf - what would I have done without trump?: https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=876948 :P
Posted by PainState on 2017-06-03 19:19:26
Iam all for the occasional political blog.
I do find it interesting that a political blog that is anti trump gets a 3+ rating and a pro trump blog gets a 1.2 blog rating with in the first 15 minutes of posting.
That is what i find interesting about political blogs on FUMBBL. The users are very left leaning and any thought that supports the "right" is lambasted and destroyed. Regardless of US or EU politics.
Further more I find it interesting that when a link to the actual Paris CLimate Accord/Treaty is presented even that is shouted down as a document that is convoluted and the meaning of it is very vague. Well of course it is. All the policy wonks and behind the scenes people are the ones that acutally write down the "Rules" they are not stated in the initial document. Those are in briefs and behind the scenes documents that you need to have access to. They are not available to the masses. You need to submit a request form to get those and most of the time you are denied or it is given in redacted form.
My last thought. The common belief it seems is that Trump cannot get us out of the accord/treaty all by himself. it will take years and years to do it. Really? It only took 2 months for president Obama to get us in to it by just saying he was good to go. No treaty ratification, no discussion and no debate. Obama just said we are in. I did not realize that meant for life with no formal agreement by the "people" he represents.
BTW: Who is going to stop the United States from pulling out? What the former PM of Luxembourg is going to berate and attempt to shame Trump into not pulling out? that is all the Paris Accords has? A verbal berating from a formal PM? No greater threats of EU boycot of all USA goods to Europe, no threats of pulling out of NATO in protest? Nothing?
There is nothing that the "world" can do to stop the USA from pulling out of this ridiculous treaty. Which is not even a treaty in the USA. Just Obama saying we are in and all is good.
I do find it interesting that a political blog that is anti trump gets a 3+ rating and a pro trump blog gets a 1.2 blog rating with in the first 15 minutes of posting.
That is what i find interesting about political blogs on FUMBBL. The users are very left leaning and any thought that supports the "right" is lambasted and destroyed. Regardless of US or EU politics.
Further more I find it interesting that when a link to the actual Paris CLimate Accord/Treaty is presented even that is shouted down as a document that is convoluted and the meaning of it is very vague. Well of course it is. All the policy wonks and behind the scenes people are the ones that acutally write down the "Rules" they are not stated in the initial document. Those are in briefs and behind the scenes documents that you need to have access to. They are not available to the masses. You need to submit a request form to get those and most of the time you are denied or it is given in redacted form.
My last thought. The common belief it seems is that Trump cannot get us out of the accord/treaty all by himself. it will take years and years to do it. Really? It only took 2 months for president Obama to get us in to it by just saying he was good to go. No treaty ratification, no discussion and no debate. Obama just said we are in. I did not realize that meant for life with no formal agreement by the "people" he represents.
BTW: Who is going to stop the United States from pulling out? What the former PM of Luxembourg is going to berate and attempt to shame Trump into not pulling out? that is all the Paris Accords has? A verbal berating from a formal PM? No greater threats of EU boycot of all USA goods to Europe, no threats of pulling out of NATO in protest? Nothing?
There is nothing that the "world" can do to stop the USA from pulling out of this ridiculous treaty. Which is not even a treaty in the USA. Just Obama saying we are in and all is good.
Posted by pythrr on 2017-06-03 19:21:26
Actually, Trumps actions matter not one bit.
The simple fact is that cliamte change is like an oiltanker. Once you've got it moving in a direction, it is very hard to slow down.
Basically Western life as we know it is fucked int he next 50 years. And there is fuck all we can do about it.
The simple fact is that cliamte change is like an oiltanker. Once you've got it moving in a direction, it is very hard to slow down.
Basically Western life as we know it is fucked int he next 50 years. And there is fuck all we can do about it.
Posted by PainState on 2017-06-03 19:27:05
Well, Iam not worried about the "west" 50-100 years down the road. Iam worried about it in the next 1-5 years. Europe has gone to shit with their progressive policies and it is starting to come to a head over there. Iam more worried about war and destruction in Europe more than the tip of Florida going under water in 2187.
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-03 20:14:53
Like Kondor, I'm very excited Trump is doing things for America that we've been needing for at least a decade. Glad I voted for him and regularly donate to his causes. Liberal policies have had 50 years now to usher in the "Utopia" of the age of Aquarius and not only failed, but everything today is worse off then before this all got started. We've experimentally established conservative values are better.
As for AGW scam, very glad he's rescinded Obama's nod. Which is all this is. USA never entered the Accord, so leaving it behind won't take years. Another thing he mentioned was, America is not abandoning the environment...we're just not doing it the fascists' way. We're going to pursue clean air and water, and green environment on our own terms, not on the terms of the anti-capitalists who use AGW scam and environment as a smoke screen for robbing the public.
As for AGW scam, very glad he's rescinded Obama's nod. Which is all this is. USA never entered the Accord, so leaving it behind won't take years. Another thing he mentioned was, America is not abandoning the environment...we're just not doing it the fascists' way. We're going to pursue clean air and water, and green environment on our own terms, not on the terms of the anti-capitalists who use AGW scam and environment as a smoke screen for robbing the public.
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-03 20:22:25
as for political blogs on a bloodbowl site, they're just fine. Bloodbowl is first and foremost a social activity. Without discussions like this, fumbbl reduces to just two people silently trying to screw each other dice...that's not a league...that's a glory hole.
No wonder fumbbl had way more games being played back when off-topic forums and relaxed policing in chatrooms were a regular occurrence.
So talk with each other...about anything; weather, movies, politics, trout slapping, family, toenails. Bring back the human factor and fumbbl becomes more playable.
No wonder fumbbl had way more games being played back when off-topic forums and relaxed policing in chatrooms were a regular occurrence.
So talk with each other...about anything; weather, movies, politics, trout slapping, family, toenails. Bring back the human factor and fumbbl becomes more playable.
Posted by fidius on 2017-06-03 20:28:11
For me, the agreement itself notwithstanding, there are 2 parts to my support for getting out of the Paris Accord: one based on fact, and one on opinion.
The fact side is that the outworkings of this climate change hysteria align 100% with the same goals leftists have had for the past century: to increase the power of government over industry, transfer wealth from rich to poor (definitions to be provided by powerful bureaucrats, and implemented with higher taxes), decrease international trade, increase energy prices, and (most importantly) help everyone feel more virtuous by signing on. Now they have this massive machine built with scare tactics and western guilt, with billions of dollars flowing and all kinds of special interests depending on that flow, and which has produced all kinds of evidence to show that it is horribly corrupt. The goals of the left and of the climate change movement are one and the same, which leads me to believe that climate change is simply the current tactic of choice for today's leftist activists.
The opinion side is that I believe the CO2=pollution basis for all of this is a massive scam. CO2 is technically a greenhouse gas, yes, but so is water vapour. CO2 is the byproduct of life and productivity on planet Earth. It is also plant food. The historical data, even at seemingly trustworthy organizations like NASA, have been changed over time to suit the climate change argument. No climate change model ever has come close to predicting temperatures in the last 30 years. Media has taken to calling the CO2 problem "carbon," which is language chosen on purpose to promote the idea of dirt and nastiness. Well-regarded scientists who speak out about the politicization of the issue are shouted down and punished with ex-communication.
If we we talking about actual pollution I'd be on-side, but CO2 is not pollution. The argument is literally insane. But it's serving the goals of the left, which is the whole point.
The fact side is that the outworkings of this climate change hysteria align 100% with the same goals leftists have had for the past century: to increase the power of government over industry, transfer wealth from rich to poor (definitions to be provided by powerful bureaucrats, and implemented with higher taxes), decrease international trade, increase energy prices, and (most importantly) help everyone feel more virtuous by signing on. Now they have this massive machine built with scare tactics and western guilt, with billions of dollars flowing and all kinds of special interests depending on that flow, and which has produced all kinds of evidence to show that it is horribly corrupt. The goals of the left and of the climate change movement are one and the same, which leads me to believe that climate change is simply the current tactic of choice for today's leftist activists.
The opinion side is that I believe the CO2=pollution basis for all of this is a massive scam. CO2 is technically a greenhouse gas, yes, but so is water vapour. CO2 is the byproduct of life and productivity on planet Earth. It is also plant food. The historical data, even at seemingly trustworthy organizations like NASA, have been changed over time to suit the climate change argument. No climate change model ever has come close to predicting temperatures in the last 30 years. Media has taken to calling the CO2 problem "carbon," which is language chosen on purpose to promote the idea of dirt and nastiness. Well-regarded scientists who speak out about the politicization of the issue are shouted down and punished with ex-communication.
If we we talking about actual pollution I'd be on-side, but CO2 is not pollution. The argument is literally insane. But it's serving the goals of the left, which is the whole point.
Posted by Wreckage on 2017-06-03 21:35:44
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worst-climate-pollution-is-carbon-dioxide/
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-03 22:18:29
"Basically Western life as we know it is fucked int he next 50 years. And there is fuck all we can do about it."
yes that's true. Liberal values have painted themselves in a corner that's closing in on them.
But that has everything to do with their low birth rate and runaway debt and not due to a highly benign trace level gas.
yes that's true. Liberal values have painted themselves in a corner that's closing in on them.
But that has everything to do with their low birth rate and runaway debt and not due to a highly benign trace level gas.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-04 00:30:19
It really amazes me how many people seem to think they know better than world-renowned climate scientists and scientific institutions. Such arrogance ... and they try to dress it up as some sort of right vs left conflict. This isn't about right vs left, or political ideology, it's about scientific evidence and truth, common sense and living sustainably.
Another thing to mention is that almost 70% of Americans agree that climate change is real. So, Trump's decision isn't even democratic. This doesn't represent the will of the majority of the American people.
Thankfully, it looks like US states, cities and corporations are going to honor the Paris accord anyway. At least they have some sense of responsibility, even if your government doesn't.
Plus, if this is all part of some left-wing conspiracy to damage industry and transfer power to the government, why are so many of the biggest US companies criticising Trump's decision?
Another thing to mention is that almost 70% of Americans agree that climate change is real. So, Trump's decision isn't even democratic. This doesn't represent the will of the majority of the American people.
Thankfully, it looks like US states, cities and corporations are going to honor the Paris accord anyway. At least they have some sense of responsibility, even if your government doesn't.
Plus, if this is all part of some left-wing conspiracy to damage industry and transfer power to the government, why are so many of the biggest US companies criticising Trump's decision?
Posted by Cloggy on 2017-06-04 01:19:01
I think the most interesting thing sais so far in this discussion is Painstate's evaluation of the Fumbbl community as "left". It nicely illuminates how isolated conservative American voters have become. Watch you own TV channels, read your own websites and that kind of dissent free environment can actually convince you that your way of thinking is middle of the road.
That says a lot about the way the human mind works and it really is very interesting indeed.
You might ask yourself: if 90% of the world seems leftist to you, where do you think that actually puts you on the bell curve of how people perceiev global politics and economics?
That says a lot about the way the human mind works and it really is very interesting indeed.
You might ask yourself: if 90% of the world seems leftist to you, where do you think that actually puts you on the bell curve of how people perceiev global politics and economics?
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-04 03:18:33
I think you have a good point, Cloggy.
To address fidius' claims regarding water vapour being just as big a contributor to global warming as CO2: sorry, but that's a red herring. The key point is that the water cycle and the carbon cycle have very different timescales. If there is too much water vapour in the atmosphere (because humans have released it), then it will condense and precipitate out, in the form of rain, over the course of a few days. This is because water is *supposed to be a liquid* at temperatures and pressures that are typical in the Earth's atmosphere.
CO2, on the other hand, is different. It's natural form at atmospheric temperatures and pressures is a gas; therefore, it can't precipitate out, if there is too much. There is no Carbon Dioxide rain. Once CO2 gas is in the atmosphere, the only way for it to come back out is through absorption by plants or the ocean surface, which are very slow processes. It took millions of years for the carbon that was captured in fossil fuels to be sequestered under the ground, which humanity has released in the space of 150 years.
Although, it is true that water vapour does play a part in global warming, because if the temperature of the atmosphere increases, then the air can store more water vapour before it condenses. You are right that water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and this effect will cause a dangerous positive feedback cycle, as the Earth warms. However, this requires the Earth's atmosphere to be warming already - humans simply emitting more H2O alone won't do it, because of the reasons I gave above.
Believe me, the world's leading climate scientists are well aware of this elementary science.
To address fidius' claims regarding water vapour being just as big a contributor to global warming as CO2: sorry, but that's a red herring. The key point is that the water cycle and the carbon cycle have very different timescales. If there is too much water vapour in the atmosphere (because humans have released it), then it will condense and precipitate out, in the form of rain, over the course of a few days. This is because water is *supposed to be a liquid* at temperatures and pressures that are typical in the Earth's atmosphere.
CO2, on the other hand, is different. It's natural form at atmospheric temperatures and pressures is a gas; therefore, it can't precipitate out, if there is too much. There is no Carbon Dioxide rain. Once CO2 gas is in the atmosphere, the only way for it to come back out is through absorption by plants or the ocean surface, which are very slow processes. It took millions of years for the carbon that was captured in fossil fuels to be sequestered under the ground, which humanity has released in the space of 150 years.
Although, it is true that water vapour does play a part in global warming, because if the temperature of the atmosphere increases, then the air can store more water vapour before it condenses. You are right that water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and this effect will cause a dangerous positive feedback cycle, as the Earth warms. However, this requires the Earth's atmosphere to be warming already - humans simply emitting more H2O alone won't do it, because of the reasons I gave above.
Believe me, the world's leading climate scientists are well aware of this elementary science.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-04 03:20:26
Btw, if as many right-wing conservatives as those posting here were logging in to play BB in the NA evenings, then it might be possible to actually get a game once in a while ... ;)
Posted by MrNomad on 2017-06-04 03:55:03
I think perhaps the opposite is true Cloggy. The EU has become so socialist/Marxist in governing style that the European population considers the left as the norm. It's been heading that way for awhile essentially with the reunification of Germany and Margaret Thatcher no longer being the leader of the UK in which happened to happen in the same year of 1990. So in the past 27 years or a little over a generation European politics has changed so drastically that the socialist/Marxist agenda is considered..."normal".
Posted by neubau on 2017-06-04 04:23:23
germany currently has a conservative government. believing merkel is a socialist/marxist just shows how incredibly misinformed the american right is.
Posted by MrNomad on 2017-06-04 05:26:25
Perhaps what I am saying is correct...that the changes have happened so that it is considered normal.
Germany is instrumental in keeping the EU financially together. This has caused hardship on it's own economy. The migrant crisis in Germany has caused quite a bit of problems in the country on a political, economic, and societal level has it not? Government spending has increased, taxation has increased. Government spending is nearly half of the GDP for the country at 44.2%.
Germany has some of the highest electrical costs in Europe because of the government's commitment to renewable energy instead of letting the private sector work that out.
But if you don't think that the government being such a big part of the economy is not socialistic in nature...who am I to argue.
Germany is instrumental in keeping the EU financially together. This has caused hardship on it's own economy. The migrant crisis in Germany has caused quite a bit of problems in the country on a political, economic, and societal level has it not? Government spending has increased, taxation has increased. Government spending is nearly half of the GDP for the country at 44.2%.
Germany has some of the highest electrical costs in Europe because of the government's commitment to renewable energy instead of letting the private sector work that out.
But if you don't think that the government being such a big part of the economy is not socialistic in nature...who am I to argue.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-04 06:25:27
Something I really don't get is why so many Americans on the right still seem to be so enamored with free market capitalism. I mean, we've just recently seen its flaws exposed very clearly, for all to see, with the biggest global crash for a generation (which we are still recovering from). The banking crisis was a direct result of lack of government regulation and a critical market failing to be able to manage itself when left to its own devices. But no, let's blame the left instead. It clearly can't be the fault of the Republican George W Bush administration, which actually presided over much of that deregulation.
The American model of global capitalism is what the world has been living with for the past 30 years. The US *defeated* Socialism, remember? But no, everything that's currently wrong with your lives and the world must surely be the fault of Socialism, it couldn't possibly be the free-market capitalist system that we've actually been living under, could it?
Yes, the loss of US blue-collar jobs can't possibly be because the global capitalist system has allowed corporations to become all-powerful to the extent that they can do whatever they want, including shipping vast numbers of jobs overseas and bringing in ever more automation to displace workers. Somehow, the corporations are the good guys and your government are the bad guys.
Yes, this global capitalist system is so wonderful, the way it has seen social equality disintegrate and allowed the gap between the rich and the poor to widen to never-before-seen levels. What a cozy, happy capitalist society we live in! :)
The American right is basically living in denial, unable to comprehend that *their* system has failed and that *their* system is responsible for their own woes. But no, the answer has to be moving further to the right. Give even more power to big business and the wealthy elite. It's just not possible that your system could be to blame, is it?
Your pride will be your downfall (and everybody else's).
The American model of global capitalism is what the world has been living with for the past 30 years. The US *defeated* Socialism, remember? But no, everything that's currently wrong with your lives and the world must surely be the fault of Socialism, it couldn't possibly be the free-market capitalist system that we've actually been living under, could it?
Yes, the loss of US blue-collar jobs can't possibly be because the global capitalist system has allowed corporations to become all-powerful to the extent that they can do whatever they want, including shipping vast numbers of jobs overseas and bringing in ever more automation to displace workers. Somehow, the corporations are the good guys and your government are the bad guys.
Yes, this global capitalist system is so wonderful, the way it has seen social equality disintegrate and allowed the gap between the rich and the poor to widen to never-before-seen levels. What a cozy, happy capitalist society we live in! :)
The American right is basically living in denial, unable to comprehend that *their* system has failed and that *their* system is responsible for their own woes. But no, the answer has to be moving further to the right. Give even more power to big business and the wealthy elite. It's just not possible that your system could be to blame, is it?
Your pride will be your downfall (and everybody else's).
Posted by RedPuma on 2017-06-04 07:36:03
I think their is quite the problem with 'facts' being thrown into the room before thinking about them or checking them first. I have no idea for example how fidius can claim that the 'leftists' have put it on their agenda to 'decrease international trade', when that is one of Trump's first and foremost promises - to make America great again by (among other things) raising import taxes on cars from other countries. Surely, Trump is no 'leftist'...so what is happening there? MrNomad goes down a similar path when he claims that 'the EU has become so socialist/Marxist in governing style [...] essentially with the reunification of Germany'. How can the downfall of the Soviet Union be considered a winning situation for the socialists/Marxists? Is that some kind of conspiracy theory that I'm not getting? (Also, why don't you, MrNomad, point out the negative effects of the refugee crisis for Europe/Germany a little more concrete? Government spending has increased, yes, but a large part of that money goes straight into the German economy by paying contractors etc. Your post feels a lot like you heard somebody say that Germany is doing bad these days and just took it at face value without checking it).
Back to topic: some here (and I will stop the quotations now, scroll up yourselves :P ) have complained about the Paris treaties being too vague. Have you considered that most of he countries in the world have signed this treaty? To get a non-vague contract for this many nations would probably require a several thousand pages long contract, making the whole thing ridiculous on an organisational level. Instead it remains vague, but by signing it, the respective nations essentially commit to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in the long term, instead of just going on the way they have up until now. And even if you choose not to trust scientists and putting climate change off as a hoax (or the 'leftist' agenda) that is a good thing, as in most cases it entails an improvement of the air we breathe as well. It will also not destroy the American economy, or any other economy. Just like immigrants don't destroy the American economy or its culture. Claiming things like that means that you look at a VERY complex situation and - probably without being an expert on the matter - just pick with the simplest, seemingly most straight forward solution.
There are so many more points that I could and would like to comment on; but my kids are waking up for breakfast, so perhaps I will come back to that later.
My main point is this though: We live in a (more or less) enlightened age. We have all the means to fact-check our opinions and I assume that most of us are educated enough to build their opinions on facts and not on hear-say. So make the best out of that! Don't just write about the 'leftist agenda' or the 'right wing propaganda' to make your point, but use facts. I'm very interested in seeing where this will go in the next few days and I will tune in again tomorrow.
Back to topic: some here (and I will stop the quotations now, scroll up yourselves :P ) have complained about the Paris treaties being too vague. Have you considered that most of he countries in the world have signed this treaty? To get a non-vague contract for this many nations would probably require a several thousand pages long contract, making the whole thing ridiculous on an organisational level. Instead it remains vague, but by signing it, the respective nations essentially commit to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in the long term, instead of just going on the way they have up until now. And even if you choose not to trust scientists and putting climate change off as a hoax (or the 'leftist' agenda) that is a good thing, as in most cases it entails an improvement of the air we breathe as well. It will also not destroy the American economy, or any other economy. Just like immigrants don't destroy the American economy or its culture. Claiming things like that means that you look at a VERY complex situation and - probably without being an expert on the matter - just pick with the simplest, seemingly most straight forward solution.
There are so many more points that I could and would like to comment on; but my kids are waking up for breakfast, so perhaps I will come back to that later.
My main point is this though: We live in a (more or less) enlightened age. We have all the means to fact-check our opinions and I assume that most of us are educated enough to build their opinions on facts and not on hear-say. So make the best out of that! Don't just write about the 'leftist agenda' or the 'right wing propaganda' to make your point, but use facts. I'm very interested in seeing where this will go in the next few days and I will tune in again tomorrow.
Posted by MrNomad on 2017-06-04 08:15:16
Perhaps we can begin by at least agreeing upon what constitutes socialism? And then we can go from there? I'll let Redpuma start that since he's interested in where things will go.
Posted by Cloggy on 2017-06-04 10:16:21
Please just refer to wikipedia, unless you believe that is a leftist run propaganda site designed to spread misinformation.
Posted by Cloggy on 2017-06-04 10:23:03
As for Germany falling apart: the Germans disagree. The ruling conservative party has recently been getting some pretty huge wins in Bundesland elections and their economy is just fine.
Let's say their wealthiest 1% are considerably less wealthy than the US's wealthiest 1%, but the other 99% is a lot better off indeed.
Let's say their wealthiest 1% are considerably less wealthy than the US's wealthiest 1%, but the other 99% is a lot better off indeed.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-04 13:53:29
Socialism is typically where the state/people's collective actually controls the 'means of production'. This means that no private ownership of businesses is allowed - the economy is 100% public-owned, with the government controlling the market and all business - setting prices, wages, etc. I.e. there is no private sector. This is coupled with welfare programs that redistribute wealth within society, with the aim of creating 'equal opportunity' for all.
My understanding is that Communism is generally even more extreme than that. Everyone basically gets paid the same, regardless of what they do or whether they work or not. Socialism is about 'equal opportunity'; Communism is about 'equal outcome'. Marxist Communism also calls for a violent revolution to overthrow the wealthy upper classes that are repressing the masses. Socialism tends to be softer than that. This is quite a complicated topic and I am probably over-simplifying, but hopefully it explains the basics.
Note that even China, a traditionally Communist country has been moving away from these models in recent years, by allowing private investment and opening up its markets to international trade, etc.
Unfortunately, there has been a high level of confusion and misinformation among Americans for decades as to what Socialism/Communism actually are and the differences between them. This probably goes back to the Cold War, where Communism/Socialism was seen as 'the enemy'.
To claim that the US Democratic Party is 'Socialist' or Europe 'Marxist' is simply laughable. Are they calling for an end to private enterprise and collective ownership of the 'means of production'? No, not even close. They are calling for a bare minimum of social responsibility, to ensure that as many people as possible have access to education/healthcare etc. (equal opportunity) and some light regulation of industry to provide stability and prevent further catastrophes like the economic crash of 2008 that brought the global economy to its knees. (How quickly the US right seems to have forgotten about that ...)
Although, in a way, I agree that this definition of 'right' and 'left' depends on your own point-of-view and where you are. From the POV of the extreme right, the Democratic Party could be described as 'left'. However, from a global and historical POV, they are right of center. They are not even close to 'Socialist'.
The US has never had a Socialist government. Nomad, I doubt you have ever lived under Socialism (I certainly haven't).
My understanding is that Communism is generally even more extreme than that. Everyone basically gets paid the same, regardless of what they do or whether they work or not. Socialism is about 'equal opportunity'; Communism is about 'equal outcome'. Marxist Communism also calls for a violent revolution to overthrow the wealthy upper classes that are repressing the masses. Socialism tends to be softer than that. This is quite a complicated topic and I am probably over-simplifying, but hopefully it explains the basics.
Note that even China, a traditionally Communist country has been moving away from these models in recent years, by allowing private investment and opening up its markets to international trade, etc.
Unfortunately, there has been a high level of confusion and misinformation among Americans for decades as to what Socialism/Communism actually are and the differences between them. This probably goes back to the Cold War, where Communism/Socialism was seen as 'the enemy'.
To claim that the US Democratic Party is 'Socialist' or Europe 'Marxist' is simply laughable. Are they calling for an end to private enterprise and collective ownership of the 'means of production'? No, not even close. They are calling for a bare minimum of social responsibility, to ensure that as many people as possible have access to education/healthcare etc. (equal opportunity) and some light regulation of industry to provide stability and prevent further catastrophes like the economic crash of 2008 that brought the global economy to its knees. (How quickly the US right seems to have forgotten about that ...)
Although, in a way, I agree that this definition of 'right' and 'left' depends on your own point-of-view and where you are. From the POV of the extreme right, the Democratic Party could be described as 'left'. However, from a global and historical POV, they are right of center. They are not even close to 'Socialist'.
The US has never had a Socialist government. Nomad, I doubt you have ever lived under Socialism (I certainly haven't).
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-04 21:00:50
Germany's birth rate is 1.39 kids per female. I assure you with 100% confidence their economy is not doing well. It is so bad, they can't even afford the minimum necessary number of births for basic survival. Darwinism has looked upon their priorities and lifestyle and has determined their phenotype to be defective and is scheduled to be naturally selected out of existence.
90% of the world would be America, Africa, and Asia. All of which don't give a rats butt about AGW. But its comical to watch Europe consider themselves "the rest of the world".
As far as "the world's most renown scientists" crap, keep in mind the world's greatest military experts resided in the Pentagon 10 years ago and nearly unanimously agreed the Iraq war was essential for survival and should continue indefinitely.
Also keep in mind the world's greatest experts on Christianity live at the Vatican and all of them will tell you Jesus is real, he is the only way to salvation, and the pope is infallible.
Never underestimate the power of "conflict of interest".
Warmists (can't call them scientists since they don't do science...science is performing experiments...Warmists aren't doing any experiments) may tell you AGW is real and its a doomsday clock...but science tells you it is highly unlikely.
90% of the world would be America, Africa, and Asia. All of which don't give a rats butt about AGW. But its comical to watch Europe consider themselves "the rest of the world".
As far as "the world's most renown scientists" crap, keep in mind the world's greatest military experts resided in the Pentagon 10 years ago and nearly unanimously agreed the Iraq war was essential for survival and should continue indefinitely.
Also keep in mind the world's greatest experts on Christianity live at the Vatican and all of them will tell you Jesus is real, he is the only way to salvation, and the pope is infallible.
Never underestimate the power of "conflict of interest".
Warmists (can't call them scientists since they don't do science...science is performing experiments...Warmists aren't doing any experiments) may tell you AGW is real and its a doomsday clock...but science tells you it is highly unlikely.
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-04 21:10:14
Why are some US CEOs promoting the liberal agenda? Easy to answer. Because they understand this agenda is about ushering in the new world order similar to North Korea...where they will be at the top living like Kim Jong-un, untouchable and uninhibited. While you the little people, shall be impoverished and considered property, nothing more.
Posted by Wreckage on 2017-06-04 22:34:29
It is comical that 195 out 198 nations are considered to be all European marxist/socialist elite... But I guess those leaders are all following political objectives and lack the ability of the US president to make pragmatic decisions over political agendas ;). Or perhaps they have all been deceived by scientists. Good the US is there to explain the world.
Posted by MrNomad on 2017-06-04 23:18:57
Simple question for you on the whole control the means of production thing. Do you think regulating and taxing business is not a means of controlling production? Simple question I'm hoping for a simple answer.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-05 01:23:55
Ark ... buddy, wow. Seriously, there is so much wrong with that second-last post of yours above that I really don't know where to start. You say that 'warmists' are not doing any experiments? I am simply dumbfounded by this. There are literally legions of scientists out there every day, making measurements of global temperatures, CO2 concentrations, monitoring coverage of the polar ice caps, glacial retreat, ocean acidity (I could go on) ... there are dozens, if not hundreds of scientific papers being released every year, building up a huge body of evidence that all points to the same thing: the Earth's climate is changing more rapidly than at any time since the dinosaurs, and the only plausible explanation is human activity.
When it comes to science, why are you listening to anybody else, other than world-renowned experts and scientific institutions? Why would you? The only conclusion I can reach is that they're just not telling you what you want to hear, so you're desperate to find some alternative.
And then, in your next post, you talk about corporations screwing and impoverishing us for their own gain. Yeah, I agree! That is what they're going to do (if left to their own devices, unregulated). So then, why do you conservatives want to give all the power to them, rather than to your government? Give all the power to the guys who are going to screw you?
When it comes to science, why are you listening to anybody else, other than world-renowned experts and scientific institutions? Why would you? The only conclusion I can reach is that they're just not telling you what you want to hear, so you're desperate to find some alternative.
And then, in your next post, you talk about corporations screwing and impoverishing us for their own gain. Yeah, I agree! That is what they're going to do (if left to their own devices, unregulated). So then, why do you conservatives want to give all the power to them, rather than to your government? Give all the power to the guys who are going to screw you?
Posted by Cloggy on 2017-06-05 01:28:21
And that simple answer = NO
Regulation and taxation exist because the market is not good a self regulation. In addition to that, contrary to the Ayn Rand Church's beliefs, billionaires are benign altruists who will save the world if only they are left alone. We've seen how much damage they have been able to cause due to the lack of regulation.
Luckily along comes our savior. He will SAVE AMERICAN JOBS!!!! Then how come the first thing he did was to give yet another tax cut to the corporate scum who moved those jobs out of the US in the first place?
It baffles me that you could think that having to pay taxes and having to play by some rules equals theft of property in your eyes. Wanna explain that?
Regulation and taxation exist because the market is not good a self regulation. In addition to that, contrary to the Ayn Rand Church's beliefs, billionaires are benign altruists who will save the world if only they are left alone. We've seen how much damage they have been able to cause due to the lack of regulation.
Luckily along comes our savior. He will SAVE AMERICAN JOBS!!!! Then how come the first thing he did was to give yet another tax cut to the corporate scum who moved those jobs out of the US in the first place?
It baffles me that you could think that having to pay taxes and having to play by some rules equals theft of property in your eyes. Wanna explain that?
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-05 02:25:37
MrNomad: sure, regulations and corporate taxes are, in a sense, a (mild) form of 'controlling production'. You could even say that they are towards the 'socialist' end of the scale, compared to not having them at all. Ok, but then what is your point?
Maybe this isn't where you're coming from, but many on the conservative right seem to think this way: branding a relatively mild level of regulation and taxation as 'socialist', to me that is like looking at a scale between black and white and saying that 98% white and 2% black might as well be black. This is an example of extremist thinking: to say that, unless something is 100% to one extreme end of the scale, then it might as well be on the other extreme, with no acknowledgement that there is a whole, continuous scale of possibilities in between.
Perhaps the extreme, 'full-black' version of Socialism is a bad place to be (many extremes are). But, that doesn't automatically mean that the extreme white end is the best place to be. Is it not possible that the 'optimum' position could be somewhere in the middle?
Sorry, that was probably a longer answer than you wanted! :)
Maybe this isn't where you're coming from, but many on the conservative right seem to think this way: branding a relatively mild level of regulation and taxation as 'socialist', to me that is like looking at a scale between black and white and saying that 98% white and 2% black might as well be black. This is an example of extremist thinking: to say that, unless something is 100% to one extreme end of the scale, then it might as well be on the other extreme, with no acknowledgement that there is a whole, continuous scale of possibilities in between.
Perhaps the extreme, 'full-black' version of Socialism is a bad place to be (many extremes are). But, that doesn't automatically mean that the extreme white end is the best place to be. Is it not possible that the 'optimum' position could be somewhere in the middle?
Sorry, that was probably a longer answer than you wanted! :)
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-05 02:31:07
Also, I just want to echo what Arktoris said earlier that I think this is a good and healthy discussion. I respect the fact that other people have a different opinion and perspective to my own, and I find it interesting to hear about and explore their opinions, even if I may not agree with them.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-05 02:39:27
Although, having said that, one of the reasons people get so emotive over this issue is that the consequences for humanity, if the climate change theory is correct, will be very dire.
So, a couple of questions for those on the 'climate skeptic' side:
1) How can you be so sure that climate change is a hoax, as you claim?
2) What if you are wrong?
So, a couple of questions for those on the 'climate skeptic' side:
1) How can you be so sure that climate change is a hoax, as you claim?
2) What if you are wrong?
Posted by MrNomad on 2017-06-05 03:25:19
The same thing is said about every religion JellyBelly....
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-05 07:16:41
Ok Jelly, show a paper. Go to google scholar and find an actual experiment performed in AGW. Not a paper on hypotheses, interpretation of trends, or computer modeling...an actual experiment. Last paper I found was in 1976, and its conclusion was "undetermined". The scientist created a terrarium with 300ppm CO2, monitored temp, then increased the CO2 to 600ppm. He couldn't tell if the temp incr was the result of greenhouse effect or the increased metabolism in the plants.
as for the other questions:
1) We're seeing 6 reasons why AGW is a hoax.
A) No experimental evidence to validate any of the warmists' claims.
B) Why would warmists refuse to do experiments? The most rational answer...because the results would be negative. Ending there ability to pursuit grant money.
C) NASA has probes watching Mars and Titan's atmosphere...which both show they are heating up too. Mars polar ice caps are also shrinking and they had a record number of dust storms in 2005 followed by a record low in storms for 2006, just like earth. Strongly indicating the warming cycle is solar in origin.
D) NASA has the technology to reverse fossil fuel burning. They can turn CO2 + H2O + solar energy into hydrocarbon. So why aren't they releasing this tech to the world if it would "save" us from destruction? Answer...there is no disaster. AGW is a hoax to steal your cash and control your industries.
E) Every change has both good and bad effects. A scientist is suppose to be unbiased and therefore give both. Yet the warmists only want to talk about the bad. Failing to talk about the good that comes from warming and increased CO2 is evidence that it is a hoax for cash.
F) China, India, US, and most of the developing countries aren't doing anything about AGW. If AGW were soooo bad and sooo vital to stop...wouldn't the warmist nations declare war on the ones killing humanity? Isn't your life worth fighting for? Why are the warmist nations content with only siphoning cash from their industries as the solution?
When you put all that together, smart people can tell this isn't anything to worry about.
2) That would be awesome if I wasn't! Antarctica would become a whole new habitable continent!!! It's 1492 all over again! I hope USA colonizes it first...seeing we have the biggest military. All that untouched natural resource and real-estate to develop. So much potential. I'd probably sell my car and buy a 1000 acres. Welcome to Arkville! The new land of opportunity!
as for the other questions:
1) We're seeing 6 reasons why AGW is a hoax.
A) No experimental evidence to validate any of the warmists' claims.
B) Why would warmists refuse to do experiments? The most rational answer...because the results would be negative. Ending there ability to pursuit grant money.
C) NASA has probes watching Mars and Titan's atmosphere...which both show they are heating up too. Mars polar ice caps are also shrinking and they had a record number of dust storms in 2005 followed by a record low in storms for 2006, just like earth. Strongly indicating the warming cycle is solar in origin.
D) NASA has the technology to reverse fossil fuel burning. They can turn CO2 + H2O + solar energy into hydrocarbon. So why aren't they releasing this tech to the world if it would "save" us from destruction? Answer...there is no disaster. AGW is a hoax to steal your cash and control your industries.
E) Every change has both good and bad effects. A scientist is suppose to be unbiased and therefore give both. Yet the warmists only want to talk about the bad. Failing to talk about the good that comes from warming and increased CO2 is evidence that it is a hoax for cash.
F) China, India, US, and most of the developing countries aren't doing anything about AGW. If AGW were soooo bad and sooo vital to stop...wouldn't the warmist nations declare war on the ones killing humanity? Isn't your life worth fighting for? Why are the warmist nations content with only siphoning cash from their industries as the solution?
When you put all that together, smart people can tell this isn't anything to worry about.
2) That would be awesome if I wasn't! Antarctica would become a whole new habitable continent!!! It's 1492 all over again! I hope USA colonizes it first...seeing we have the biggest military. All that untouched natural resource and real-estate to develop. So much potential. I'd probably sell my car and buy a 1000 acres. Welcome to Arkville! The new land of opportunity!
Posted by ben_awesome on 2017-06-05 10:46:40
Just on this point:
"Answer...there is no disaster. AGW is a hoax to steal your cash and control your industries"
I was under the impression that green energy would increase the number of jobs in the American industry, whilst at the same time making energy/fuel more affordable so of a benefit to households and businesses alike.
"Answer...there is no disaster. AGW is a hoax to steal your cash and control your industries"
I was under the impression that green energy would increase the number of jobs in the American industry, whilst at the same time making energy/fuel more affordable so of a benefit to households and businesses alike.
Posted by happygrue on 2017-06-05 16:24:19
As an American (named George for good measure) who was living overseas in 2003 when "we" went into Iraq, I can tell you that people were not shy sharing their opinions on the matter with me. "where is your cowboy hat today, George?" and "who are you going to bomb today, Mr. Bush?" were the kind of jokes I could expect walking into work.
Sometimes amusing, other times not - it is striking being an American overseas when your country does something like this. The world has an opinion, and we don't see that if we sit at home and don't consider what that is. Sometimes those opinions matter, and other times they don't really (much like our opinions of what other countries do). But we all heard China say afterward that their word is good. That when they say they are going to do something, they will do it. That message was clearly received.
I thought a lot about the millions of Americans living abroad when faced with a day where an unpopular leader does something even more unilaterally than going into Iraq (which was downright popular by contrast, having support from a number of other governments). But the Paris agreement? Well, Syria was a bit busy and Nicaragua didn't think Paris went far enough - everyone else signed on. North Korea, Yemen, Iran, everyone. Maybe it *will* actually work out for the best if the world doesn't look to the U.S. for leadership as they once did. I don't know. Maybe we'll mostly meet our targets anyway, despite our top-level government foot dragging, because cities (including Pittsburgh) and groups are banding together to implement Paris In any case, to those Americans who are getting an earful in other countries all over the world: I feel you. To the rest of the world: Sorry! We're working on.
Sometimes amusing, other times not - it is striking being an American overseas when your country does something like this. The world has an opinion, and we don't see that if we sit at home and don't consider what that is. Sometimes those opinions matter, and other times they don't really (much like our opinions of what other countries do). But we all heard China say afterward that their word is good. That when they say they are going to do something, they will do it. That message was clearly received.
I thought a lot about the millions of Americans living abroad when faced with a day where an unpopular leader does something even more unilaterally than going into Iraq (which was downright popular by contrast, having support from a number of other governments). But the Paris agreement? Well, Syria was a bit busy and Nicaragua didn't think Paris went far enough - everyone else signed on. North Korea, Yemen, Iran, everyone. Maybe it *will* actually work out for the best if the world doesn't look to the U.S. for leadership as they once did. I don't know. Maybe we'll mostly meet our targets anyway, despite our top-level government foot dragging, because cities (including Pittsburgh) and groups are banding together to implement Paris In any case, to those Americans who are getting an earful in other countries all over the world: I feel you. To the rest of the world: Sorry! We're working on.
Posted by MrNomad on 2017-06-05 16:50:08
C9805222 I believe a little over half of the green energy companies subsidized by the US government have went belly up. The government spent 150 billion dollars and increased renewal energy production by a little over 1%. So all them nice green energy jobs never really came to fruition even though a ton of money was thrown at it. Also without the government subsidies most of the ones who are still in business wouldn't be.
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-05 18:39:39
Well c yes. Potentially that can happen. I'm for new energy for the same reasons as George w bush...to wean us a off foreign oil and thus foreign governments have less power to dictate us a laws and policies.we5
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-05 18:42:56
Bottomline...you don't have to embrace socialist fairytales to pursue progress.
Posted by happygrue on 2017-06-05 18:53:01
Rather than quibble with your numbers MrNomad, I'll just point out that the coal industry in the U.S. employs fewer people than Arby's does. Also fewer than the number of people working in clean energy jobs in *my state alone*. Another tidbit of interest is that the coal industry lost twice as many jobs under Reagan as it did under Obama. That has less to do with policies of either president IMO, and more to do with automation and other issues than it does with "regulation". There are a lot of trends going on, and it's a complicated issue. Fracking is big here these days, but solar and wind are too. I don't claim to have the answers, but looking to the future and regardless of how we get our energy I would hate to be left behind in a growth industry that sweeps the world.
Posted by MrNomad on 2017-06-05 19:34:27
I understand what you are saying Grue. It's just the jobs promised are not really taking shape in the renewable energy sector as of now. Plus I've never been a fan of government subsidies for any private business. The US has enough debt as it is and I'd rather not throw money plus interest away on private companies that close shop so quickly with nothing to show for it.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-05 23:50:57
Ok, Arktoris, you asked me to show you some actual research/experiments that support man-made climate change. I had a pretty busy day at work, but here goes:
Firstly, here is a paper that was published in January this year in Science, describing actual measurements that have been done of sea surface temperatures:
[url]http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full[/url]
Next up, this is a very interesting page from NASA, discussing climate change evidence (You might remember them as being the US organization that first put humans on the moon):
[url]https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/[/url]
That big chart there shows the average carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere over the past 400,000 years, which is based on measurements taken from ice cores.
Here is a very interesting page from the NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), describing how we make measurements of today's climate:
[url]https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/measuring-climate[/url]
and here is another one from them, describing how we know what the climate was in the past:
[url]https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/past-climate[/url]
Here is a YouTube video of scientists drilling for ice cores in Antarctica. Some video evidence of real scientists, actually making measurements:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdfcNIFEnF8[/url]
And this one is a quick video from NASA showing how global temperatures are measured:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uv26dIgaKs[/url]
Firstly, here is a paper that was published in January this year in Science, describing actual measurements that have been done of sea surface temperatures:
[url]http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full[/url]
Next up, this is a very interesting page from NASA, discussing climate change evidence (You might remember them as being the US organization that first put humans on the moon):
[url]https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/[/url]
That big chart there shows the average carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere over the past 400,000 years, which is based on measurements taken from ice cores.
Here is a very interesting page from the NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), describing how we make measurements of today's climate:
[url]https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/measuring-climate[/url]
and here is another one from them, describing how we know what the climate was in the past:
[url]https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/past-climate[/url]
Here is a YouTube video of scientists drilling for ice cores in Antarctica. Some video evidence of real scientists, actually making measurements:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdfcNIFEnF8[/url]
And this one is a quick video from NASA showing how global temperatures are measured:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uv26dIgaKs[/url]
Posted by JellyBelly on 2017-06-06 00:09:58
To answer some of your other points as well:
[b]1) We're seeing 6 reasons why AGW is a hoax.
A) No experimental evidence to validate any of the warmists' claims.[/b]
I just posted excerpts from a small fraction of the huge body of experimental evidence that supports the theory of global warming. There is experimental evidence - you are either unaware or choosing to ignore it.
[b]B) Why would warmists refuse to do experiments? The most rational answer...because the results would be negative. Ending there ability to pursuit grant money.[/b]
They are doing experiments and publishing their data for the world to see. I just showed you video evidence of that.
[b]C) NASA has probes watching Mars and Titan's atmosphere...which both show they are heating up too. Mars polar ice caps are also shrinking and they had a record number of dust storms in 2005 followed by a record low in storms for 2006, just like earth. Strongly indicating the warming cycle is solar in origin.[/b]
Mars doesn't have polar ice caps. There is no water on Mars that is visible from Earth. We only recently found tiny amounts of water in some soil samples, from the NASA rovers that were sent there to make physical measurements. Mars actually has practically no atmosphere at all compared to Earth - most of it has been stripped away by the solar wind.
[b]D) NASA has the technology to reverse fossil fuel burning. They can turn CO2 + H2O + solar energy into hydrocarbon. So why aren't they releasing this tech to the world if it would "save" us from destruction? Answer...there is no disaster. AGW is a hoax to steal your cash and control your industries.[/b]
I don't know anything about this tbh - do you have a reference? CO2 + H20 --> carbonic sugars + Oxygen during photosynthesis, which takes place in plants. Yes, plants have the power to potentially take CO2 out of the atmosphere, but that process is very slow. Too slow to compensate for the huge increase in CO2 emissions that humans are responsible for.
[b]E) Every change has both good and bad effects. A scientist is suppose to be unbiased and therefore give both. Yet the warmists only want to talk about the bad. Failing to talk about the good that comes from warming and increased CO2 is evidence that it is a hoax for cash.[/b]
I don't agree that every change has both good and bad effects. When the metorite hit that killed the dinosaurs, there wasn't much of a silver lining, from their perspective, right?
[b]F) China, India, US, and most of the developing countries aren't doing anything about AGW. If AGW were soooo bad and sooo vital to stop...wouldn't the warmist nations declare war on the ones killing humanity? Isn't your life worth fighting for? Why are the warmist nations content with only siphoning cash from their industries as the solution?[/b]
Practically every other country in the world apart from the US has agreed to the Paris Climate Accord, including China, India and Europe. They have all committed to reducing their CO2 emissions. Why aren't the 'warmist' nations declaring war on the US over it? Well, war is bad as well, plus the US has enough nukes to destroy the Earth about 100 times over ..
[b]2) That would be awesome if I wasn't! Antarctica would become a whole new habitable continent!!! It's 1492 all over again! I hope USA colonizes it first...seeing we have the biggest military. All that untouched natural resource and real-estate to develop. So much potential. I'd probably sell my car and buy a 1000 acres. Welcome to Arkville! The new land of opportunity![/b]
I agree, it is possible. Although, seeing as the continents that are currently habitable would become uninhabitable in the process, I very much doubt there would be a net gain of habitable land. It is quite possible that by 2100, World War 3 will be about who gets to inhabit Antarctica, because the US, Europe, Asia have all been desertified. It would almost be funny, if only it wasn't ... :(
[b]1) We're seeing 6 reasons why AGW is a hoax.
A) No experimental evidence to validate any of the warmists' claims.[/b]
I just posted excerpts from a small fraction of the huge body of experimental evidence that supports the theory of global warming. There is experimental evidence - you are either unaware or choosing to ignore it.
[b]B) Why would warmists refuse to do experiments? The most rational answer...because the results would be negative. Ending there ability to pursuit grant money.[/b]
They are doing experiments and publishing their data for the world to see. I just showed you video evidence of that.
[b]C) NASA has probes watching Mars and Titan's atmosphere...which both show they are heating up too. Mars polar ice caps are also shrinking and they had a record number of dust storms in 2005 followed by a record low in storms for 2006, just like earth. Strongly indicating the warming cycle is solar in origin.[/b]
Mars doesn't have polar ice caps. There is no water on Mars that is visible from Earth. We only recently found tiny amounts of water in some soil samples, from the NASA rovers that were sent there to make physical measurements. Mars actually has practically no atmosphere at all compared to Earth - most of it has been stripped away by the solar wind.
[b]D) NASA has the technology to reverse fossil fuel burning. They can turn CO2 + H2O + solar energy into hydrocarbon. So why aren't they releasing this tech to the world if it would "save" us from destruction? Answer...there is no disaster. AGW is a hoax to steal your cash and control your industries.[/b]
I don't know anything about this tbh - do you have a reference? CO2 + H20 --> carbonic sugars + Oxygen during photosynthesis, which takes place in plants. Yes, plants have the power to potentially take CO2 out of the atmosphere, but that process is very slow. Too slow to compensate for the huge increase in CO2 emissions that humans are responsible for.
[b]E) Every change has both good and bad effects. A scientist is suppose to be unbiased and therefore give both. Yet the warmists only want to talk about the bad. Failing to talk about the good that comes from warming and increased CO2 is evidence that it is a hoax for cash.[/b]
I don't agree that every change has both good and bad effects. When the metorite hit that killed the dinosaurs, there wasn't much of a silver lining, from their perspective, right?
[b]F) China, India, US, and most of the developing countries aren't doing anything about AGW. If AGW were soooo bad and sooo vital to stop...wouldn't the warmist nations declare war on the ones killing humanity? Isn't your life worth fighting for? Why are the warmist nations content with only siphoning cash from their industries as the solution?[/b]
Practically every other country in the world apart from the US has agreed to the Paris Climate Accord, including China, India and Europe. They have all committed to reducing their CO2 emissions. Why aren't the 'warmist' nations declaring war on the US over it? Well, war is bad as well, plus the US has enough nukes to destroy the Earth about 100 times over ..
[b]2) That would be awesome if I wasn't! Antarctica would become a whole new habitable continent!!! It's 1492 all over again! I hope USA colonizes it first...seeing we have the biggest military. All that untouched natural resource and real-estate to develop. So much potential. I'd probably sell my car and buy a 1000 acres. Welcome to Arkville! The new land of opportunity![/b]
I agree, it is possible. Although, seeing as the continents that are currently habitable would become uninhabitable in the process, I very much doubt there would be a net gain of habitable land. It is quite possible that by 2100, World War 3 will be about who gets to inhabit Antarctica, because the US, Europe, Asia have all been desertified. It would almost be funny, if only it wasn't ... :(
Posted by RedPuma on 2017-06-06 08:03:50
Oh man, I wish I had more time to post responses in between. So much has happened since my last post...So let me get into some of the things that can‘t be left uncommented in my opinion.
First of these is Arktoris saying:
„Germany's birth rate is 1.39 kids per female. I assure you with 100% confidence their economy is not doing well. It is so bad, they can't even afford the minimum necessary number of births for basic survival. Darwinism has looked upon their priorities and lifestyle and has determined their phenotype to be defective and is scheduled to be naturally selected out of existence.“
There are two major problems with this statement. The first one being oversimplification: it looks like you asked yourself what a good indicator for a healthy economy might be and decided to go solely with the country’s birth rate – which is ridiculous. You cannot tie a system as complicated as a country’s economy to one single indicator. It simply doesn’t work. There are so many different aspects affecting each other that you HAVE to take a look at the system as a whole to make any educated comment about it and while birth rates might play a minor role in it, it is not even close to being a decisive factor.
The second problem with your statement is logic, plain and simple. It’s missing. If a low birth rate indicates a bad economy, then it follows that a high birth rate indicates a strong economy, which in turn means that most third world countries have a REALLY good economy. Much better than the US even. So instead of tying birth rates to the economy of a country, you should rather consider what it might say about the country’s educational system, child mortality, or even the country’s culture. But enough of that for now.
In the same post, Arktoris calls scientists “Warmists (can't call them scientists since they don't do science...science is performing experiments...Warmists aren't doing any experiments)”. That reminds me of some of the fifth graders I teach, who believe that scientists always run around in lab-coats, have crazy white hair and don’t do anything but mixing some green fluid into a red fluid, which may or may not cause an explosion. Science. Arktoris, You are a grown man, you should know that science is NOT only doing experiments; it can be, but it doesn’t have to be. Math relies solely on logic, social scientists can conduct experiments, but also largely depend other empirical observations, and ultimately meteorologists also practice science when they gather and interpret data about our climate of the last decades and centuries. So please, stop calling meteorologists ‘warmists’.
Now, I feel like my post can be seen as a personal attack on you, Arktoris. That is not my intention. I just had to comment on the things you said because they were simply not true. And even though I compared your view of science to that of a fifth grader, I do not doubt your intelligence one bit; I do think though that you are too set on your opinion about this topic as to really take your time to critically think about the things you hear/read and have already accepted as facts. That’s something that people on ‘both sides’ (pro and con climate change) tend to do, but it is more damaging to the discussion than it is productive.
Many of the other things I wanted to comment on have already been covered by JellyBelly and happygrue, so I’ll leave that alone for now. It’s breakfast time for the kiddos again anyway ;) But let’s keep this discussion up, it’s something that needs to be talked about.
First of these is Arktoris saying:
„Germany's birth rate is 1.39 kids per female. I assure you with 100% confidence their economy is not doing well. It is so bad, they can't even afford the minimum necessary number of births for basic survival. Darwinism has looked upon their priorities and lifestyle and has determined their phenotype to be defective and is scheduled to be naturally selected out of existence.“
There are two major problems with this statement. The first one being oversimplification: it looks like you asked yourself what a good indicator for a healthy economy might be and decided to go solely with the country’s birth rate – which is ridiculous. You cannot tie a system as complicated as a country’s economy to one single indicator. It simply doesn’t work. There are so many different aspects affecting each other that you HAVE to take a look at the system as a whole to make any educated comment about it and while birth rates might play a minor role in it, it is not even close to being a decisive factor.
The second problem with your statement is logic, plain and simple. It’s missing. If a low birth rate indicates a bad economy, then it follows that a high birth rate indicates a strong economy, which in turn means that most third world countries have a REALLY good economy. Much better than the US even. So instead of tying birth rates to the economy of a country, you should rather consider what it might say about the country’s educational system, child mortality, or even the country’s culture. But enough of that for now.
In the same post, Arktoris calls scientists “Warmists (can't call them scientists since they don't do science...science is performing experiments...Warmists aren't doing any experiments)”. That reminds me of some of the fifth graders I teach, who believe that scientists always run around in lab-coats, have crazy white hair and don’t do anything but mixing some green fluid into a red fluid, which may or may not cause an explosion. Science. Arktoris, You are a grown man, you should know that science is NOT only doing experiments; it can be, but it doesn’t have to be. Math relies solely on logic, social scientists can conduct experiments, but also largely depend other empirical observations, and ultimately meteorologists also practice science when they gather and interpret data about our climate of the last decades and centuries. So please, stop calling meteorologists ‘warmists’.
Now, I feel like my post can be seen as a personal attack on you, Arktoris. That is not my intention. I just had to comment on the things you said because they were simply not true. And even though I compared your view of science to that of a fifth grader, I do not doubt your intelligence one bit; I do think though that you are too set on your opinion about this topic as to really take your time to critically think about the things you hear/read and have already accepted as facts. That’s something that people on ‘both sides’ (pro and con climate change) tend to do, but it is more damaging to the discussion than it is productive.
Many of the other things I wanted to comment on have already been covered by JellyBelly and happygrue, so I’ll leave that alone for now. It’s breakfast time for the kiddos again anyway ;) But let’s keep this discussion up, it’s something that needs to be talked about.
Posted by pythrr on 2017-06-06 20:40:06
wow
there is a crap load of denial on this thread.
KILL ALL MENS
there is a crap load of denial on this thread.
KILL ALL MENS
Posted by Jeffthejar on 2017-06-06 21:09:54
Just a couple of things:
First thing: I am glad that this blog is still up. I don't think I've seen many (or anypolitical blogs here on fumbbl get 43 users to rate them, and have the blog still show up in the recent list of blogs.
Next thing: There was a question posed to those who deny climate change: "What if you are wrong?" It was answered with "the same can be said for every religion..."
I'd like to say that there is no connection whatsoever to religion and climate change... So, forgive me if I mis-read the comment and that comment was answering another post, but there is really no connection... If I am atheist, and I am wrong, the only person who has to deal with the repercussions of my belief is myself. I die and go to hell... no one else has to deal with my decision.
If we, as a planet, continue to damage the environment because we believe climate change is a hoax (and it turns out to not be a hoax), the people who have to deal with those repercussions are (obviously) everyone who will continue to live after we all go.
And one last thing: Who really wants non-renewable energy sources? Who really wants fracking to literally make people's drinking water undrinkable and, in fact, flammable? Why should we not invest in renewable energy sources? If global warming is a hoax, should we not still want a clean environment to live in?
First thing: I am glad that this blog is still up. I don't think I've seen many (or anypolitical blogs here on fumbbl get 43 users to rate them, and have the blog still show up in the recent list of blogs.
Next thing: There was a question posed to those who deny climate change: "What if you are wrong?" It was answered with "the same can be said for every religion..."
I'd like to say that there is no connection whatsoever to religion and climate change... So, forgive me if I mis-read the comment and that comment was answering another post, but there is really no connection... If I am atheist, and I am wrong, the only person who has to deal with the repercussions of my belief is myself. I die and go to hell... no one else has to deal with my decision.
If we, as a planet, continue to damage the environment because we believe climate change is a hoax (and it turns out to not be a hoax), the people who have to deal with those repercussions are (obviously) everyone who will continue to live after we all go.
And one last thing: Who really wants non-renewable energy sources? Who really wants fracking to literally make people's drinking water undrinkable and, in fact, flammable? Why should we not invest in renewable energy sources? If global warming is a hoax, should we not still want a clean environment to live in?
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-07 05:02:34
Hello RedPuma,
I think you are confusing the word "philosopher" with the word, "scientist". Easy to do considering scientists are a form of philosopher, like a square is a form of rectangle. A philosopher is someone who uses logic, reason, and observations to deduce an explanation for why things happen.
Science is a type of philosophy. Scientists make observations, use logic and reason to form a hypothesis...and then devise experiments to normalize all other variables save one to validate if their hypothesis is true or not.
So mathematicians and those not performing experiments are NOT scientists, but they can still be philosophers. Example, Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang Theory is NOT a scientist. He is a philosopher (theoretical physicist). His roommate is a scientist; someone who formulates hypotheses and then carries out experiments to validate.
Some people (like Sheldon) still want to call themselves scientist anyway b/c the name invokes respect. They're borrowing the placebo effect of that title to influence the public. The same with Warmists. Look at JellyBelly's list above. They do modelling, make observations in ice, but don't do experiments to validate any of it. They are philosophers, not scientists. (got to have 4 equal sides for a rectangle to be a square...got to do experiments if a philosopher wants to be a scientist)
on with the economy statement:
Their are so many variables into whether your economy is thriving, that the only accurate way to determine that is to go with "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
The birth rate is the main factor b/c that is every species biological prime directive to exist in the first place. If you don't get that right, what's the point in getting anything else right? You've almost literally thrown the baby out with the bath water. What's the point in having a great "education system" if you have no kids to use it? What's the point in having a great culture if you have no one to enjoy it? If you can't afford kids, you missed the whole point in having an economy in the first place...let alone missed the whole point on why you breathe.
So yes, those third world countries DO have a better economy than atheist liberal western countries, b/c those economies accomplish what an economy is all about...survival. They'll still be here at the end of the 21st century...liberal atheist western culture...will not.
Making a million dollars a year isn't anything to be proud of...if you spent 1.1 million to earn that million. That includes undisclosed losses, opportunity costs, and all other direct and indirect debits and credits, both monetary and nonmonetary. in the end, the absolute amount isn't important...it's whether or not the purchase power is sufficient to pass the test of Darwinism...or fade away with the dinosaurs and dodo birds.
I think you are confusing the word "philosopher" with the word, "scientist". Easy to do considering scientists are a form of philosopher, like a square is a form of rectangle. A philosopher is someone who uses logic, reason, and observations to deduce an explanation for why things happen.
Science is a type of philosophy. Scientists make observations, use logic and reason to form a hypothesis...and then devise experiments to normalize all other variables save one to validate if their hypothesis is true or not.
So mathematicians and those not performing experiments are NOT scientists, but they can still be philosophers. Example, Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang Theory is NOT a scientist. He is a philosopher (theoretical physicist). His roommate is a scientist; someone who formulates hypotheses and then carries out experiments to validate.
Some people (like Sheldon) still want to call themselves scientist anyway b/c the name invokes respect. They're borrowing the placebo effect of that title to influence the public. The same with Warmists. Look at JellyBelly's list above. They do modelling, make observations in ice, but don't do experiments to validate any of it. They are philosophers, not scientists. (got to have 4 equal sides for a rectangle to be a square...got to do experiments if a philosopher wants to be a scientist)
on with the economy statement:
Their are so many variables into whether your economy is thriving, that the only accurate way to determine that is to go with "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
The birth rate is the main factor b/c that is every species biological prime directive to exist in the first place. If you don't get that right, what's the point in getting anything else right? You've almost literally thrown the baby out with the bath water. What's the point in having a great "education system" if you have no kids to use it? What's the point in having a great culture if you have no one to enjoy it? If you can't afford kids, you missed the whole point in having an economy in the first place...let alone missed the whole point on why you breathe.
So yes, those third world countries DO have a better economy than atheist liberal western countries, b/c those economies accomplish what an economy is all about...survival. They'll still be here at the end of the 21st century...liberal atheist western culture...will not.
Making a million dollars a year isn't anything to be proud of...if you spent 1.1 million to earn that million. That includes undisclosed losses, opportunity costs, and all other direct and indirect debits and credits, both monetary and nonmonetary. in the end, the absolute amount isn't important...it's whether or not the purchase power is sufficient to pass the test of Darwinism...or fade away with the dinosaurs and dodo birds.
Posted by RedPuma on 2017-06-07 06:23:44
Hello Arktoris,
I am not sure where you get your definitions or your insight knowledge about the German economy, but as a philosophy teacher who was born and raised in Germany I strongly object to pretty much everything you wrote in that last post.
Your idea of what is science and what is philosophy is outdated by many, many years. We can continue throwing our own personal definitions at each other, but it probably makes more sense if we stick with the more official definitions; so for the sake of simplicity, start with wikipedia and look up science (and philosophy if you like) and let me know if you find any other definition that actually backs up your view.
Back to kids and economy: You are right,if you don't have children, there is basically no need to do anything for future generations. But the conclusion you are drawing above is false because you apparently have no background knowledge about Germany at all.
Every German family gets money from the government for each of their children (192€ for the first and second child each, 198€ for the third, more for the ones after that); in Germany, parents can take up to a combined 14 months of parent leave from their jobs after their child is born to have time with their family - and they get paid up to 66% of their previous income on top of getting a guarantee to get either their old position or an equal position in the same company back; you can prolong this parent leave to up to 3 years (more if you have twins or multiples) without payment and mothers, on top of that, are legally prohibited to work 6 weeks before and 8 weeks after their calculated birth due date with a 100% income compensation - and if they work in 'high risk' fields like day cares, they are prohibited to work as soon as they know they are pregnant to protect the unborn child (again while getting 100% of their netto income). And while we are talking about schools and daycares: becoming a daycare teacher in Germany requires a two to three year formal training, becoming a teacher requires a University degree and 18 months of formal practical training. Compare that to the situation in the US: no parental leave (from what I know it is the only developed country that lacks some sort of parental leave), and the prerequisites to become a daycare teacher or any other sort of teacher are much lower. I only know the Florida system in more depth, so perhaps it's different in the other states (although I doubt that based on what I have heard so far from friends and family over there), but in FL you CAN take a similar training, but you are by no means required to; I know plenty of people who got their Bachelors in whatever, used that to teach for a couple of years at a public high school, then went back to university - not the best situation for the students at those schools.
I think that should show that Germany is certainly not lacking behind when it comes to taking care of families and children in particular. If you still doubt German wealth, look at our unemployment programs, the amount of money Germany was able to spend to help other EU countries out, its ranking amongst exporting countries and so on.
And your second to last paragraph is pure and simply scary. Travel to Africa - Somalia for example, or Eritrea - and tell them they have a great economy because they have incredibly high fertility rates. The first thing they'll do is probably to tell you about how few of all those children born actually survive to become adults. There is a reason so many people flee from those countries and try to get to Europe or America.
I am not sure where you get your definitions or your insight knowledge about the German economy, but as a philosophy teacher who was born and raised in Germany I strongly object to pretty much everything you wrote in that last post.
Your idea of what is science and what is philosophy is outdated by many, many years. We can continue throwing our own personal definitions at each other, but it probably makes more sense if we stick with the more official definitions; so for the sake of simplicity, start with wikipedia and look up science (and philosophy if you like) and let me know if you find any other definition that actually backs up your view.
Back to kids and economy: You are right,if you don't have children, there is basically no need to do anything for future generations. But the conclusion you are drawing above is false because you apparently have no background knowledge about Germany at all.
Every German family gets money from the government for each of their children (192€ for the first and second child each, 198€ for the third, more for the ones after that); in Germany, parents can take up to a combined 14 months of parent leave from their jobs after their child is born to have time with their family - and they get paid up to 66% of their previous income on top of getting a guarantee to get either their old position or an equal position in the same company back; you can prolong this parent leave to up to 3 years (more if you have twins or multiples) without payment and mothers, on top of that, are legally prohibited to work 6 weeks before and 8 weeks after their calculated birth due date with a 100% income compensation - and if they work in 'high risk' fields like day cares, they are prohibited to work as soon as they know they are pregnant to protect the unborn child (again while getting 100% of their netto income). And while we are talking about schools and daycares: becoming a daycare teacher in Germany requires a two to three year formal training, becoming a teacher requires a University degree and 18 months of formal practical training. Compare that to the situation in the US: no parental leave (from what I know it is the only developed country that lacks some sort of parental leave), and the prerequisites to become a daycare teacher or any other sort of teacher are much lower. I only know the Florida system in more depth, so perhaps it's different in the other states (although I doubt that based on what I have heard so far from friends and family over there), but in FL you CAN take a similar training, but you are by no means required to; I know plenty of people who got their Bachelors in whatever, used that to teach for a couple of years at a public high school, then went back to university - not the best situation for the students at those schools.
I think that should show that Germany is certainly not lacking behind when it comes to taking care of families and children in particular. If you still doubt German wealth, look at our unemployment programs, the amount of money Germany was able to spend to help other EU countries out, its ranking amongst exporting countries and so on.
And your second to last paragraph is pure and simply scary. Travel to Africa - Somalia for example, or Eritrea - and tell them they have a great economy because they have incredibly high fertility rates. The first thing they'll do is probably to tell you about how few of all those children born actually survive to become adults. There is a reason so many people flee from those countries and try to get to Europe or America.
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-08 05:35:45
Ok JellyBelly. YOu were asked to reference an actual scientific experiment validating the hypotheses on AGW.
I'm looking at reference 1 since that potentially had the greatest chance of satisfying the challenge. The article in Science Advances title is "Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records"
The focus of the article is addressing the bias in measurement of sea surface temperatures based on method of measurement and how that bias affect the trends witnessed.
I'm looking at six figures of data. Which one experimentally validates the hypothesis that the earth is warming up due to the greenhouse effect of CO2?
to quote the Wendy's grandma..."Where's the beef?"
I'm looking at reference 1 since that potentially had the greatest chance of satisfying the challenge. The article in Science Advances title is "Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records"
The focus of the article is addressing the bias in measurement of sea surface temperatures based on method of measurement and how that bias affect the trends witnessed.
I'm looking at six figures of data. Which one experimentally validates the hypothesis that the earth is warming up due to the greenhouse effect of CO2?
to quote the Wendy's grandma..."Where's the beef?"
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-08 06:12:09
reality has not changed in "many many years". It's the same laws of physics and 2 + 2 is still 4. The definitions still stand.
Don't think mathematicians, scientists, etc are philosophers? The highest level of education in these fields are called PhDs. PhD...that's an abbreviation. What's that stand for?
checkmate ; )
Don't need to know anything else about German economy to know its substandard. Why it's failing does require more intimate knowledge, but whether it is or not...nope...that's settled science already. The experimental results are in. 1.39 births per female. The forces of nature that decide these things have spoken.
It's like baseball teams. Want to know if team A or B is better? That's simple. Which one won the game?
Who has the faster pitch? The better batting average? The shortstop with the least errors? The highest paid player? Not important. When the last inning of the last game of 7 is finished, who has the higher score? That's the better team. Done. Settled. Next question.
I visited Nigeria in '08 to assist them in learning analytical chemistry. Some live in nice houses, others in shacks, others in a dirt hole. But the at the end of the day, their kids are alive and the nation's population is thriving...while Germany's kids are rotting in a biohazard bag behind the abortion clinic. We now know who's economy is better. Darwin has spoken and it is the ultimate judge.
Why is Nigeria's economy better? What are German's doing wrong? How can they fix it to prevent extinction? Now we need to look at the finer parameters in detail.
But who's doing better? Natural selection gave us the answer. The average father in Nigeria can earn enough money to feed/cloth/shelter 4 kids. The average father in Germany can only feed/cloth/shelter 1.4.
One nation is thriving, the other, fading into a footnote.
Like the baseball teams, the matter is settled science. done. Next Question.
Don't think mathematicians, scientists, etc are philosophers? The highest level of education in these fields are called PhDs. PhD...that's an abbreviation. What's that stand for?
checkmate ; )
Don't need to know anything else about German economy to know its substandard. Why it's failing does require more intimate knowledge, but whether it is or not...nope...that's settled science already. The experimental results are in. 1.39 births per female. The forces of nature that decide these things have spoken.
It's like baseball teams. Want to know if team A or B is better? That's simple. Which one won the game?
Who has the faster pitch? The better batting average? The shortstop with the least errors? The highest paid player? Not important. When the last inning of the last game of 7 is finished, who has the higher score? That's the better team. Done. Settled. Next question.
I visited Nigeria in '08 to assist them in learning analytical chemistry. Some live in nice houses, others in shacks, others in a dirt hole. But the at the end of the day, their kids are alive and the nation's population is thriving...while Germany's kids are rotting in a biohazard bag behind the abortion clinic. We now know who's economy is better. Darwin has spoken and it is the ultimate judge.
Why is Nigeria's economy better? What are German's doing wrong? How can they fix it to prevent extinction? Now we need to look at the finer parameters in detail.
But who's doing better? Natural selection gave us the answer. The average father in Nigeria can earn enough money to feed/cloth/shelter 4 kids. The average father in Germany can only feed/cloth/shelter 1.4.
One nation is thriving, the other, fading into a footnote.
Like the baseball teams, the matter is settled science. done. Next Question.
Posted by RedPuma on 2017-06-08 06:59:53
Arktoris, are you still serious or are you trolling everyone here? I really mean that question, because I don't want to keep on investing time in long answers just to feed a troll. If you are serious I will gladly continue arguing; but I'll also let you know in advance that what you are saying is again complete bogus.
Posted by Jeffthejar on 2017-06-08 17:10:32
I definitely think that there are at least two trolls in this thread... they just write a bunch of silly nonsense trying to get rises out of people, no actual content to what they write.
(If they aren't trolling... SAD! I guess America needs less public education cuts...)
(If they aren't trolling... SAD! I guess America needs less public education cuts...)
Posted by Arktoris on 2017-06-12 18:26:04
a nation that can only afford 1.4 kids per female on a permanent progressively degenerating curve is a serious matter RedPuma for that country.
That being said, yes, the conversation is over. All that needs to be said has been said.
Either improve your economy, or the world will move into the empty houses and build a new country. Maybe call it New Slavia or New Syria or something.
That being said, yes, the conversation is over. All that needs to be said has been said.
Either improve your economy, or the world will move into the empty houses and build a new country. Maybe call it New Slavia or New Syria or something.