Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your definition of "conspiracy" is pretty out there. Recommendations include:
Alleviating poverty!
Improved access to education and nutrition!
Maintaining wetlands and urban green space!
Microfinance!
When you recognize the ramifications of a rapidly changing climate are famine, food insecurity, economic insecurity, war, overwhelming insurance claims, etc, you realize why this issue spreads into all facets of society. Building resilience in social, economic, and environmental realms, and investing in new technologies just as government, universities, and businesses invested in every technology we've had to date to make this transition (just look how government built Silicon Valley and, fundamentally, the computer you're using).
Nothing in what I saw from that very general list suggests there is not room for market-based ways of approaching them. They are so broad they lack almost all meaning. There's no "how", so have at it. Show them how, but please stop pretending this is a conspiracy. What they list is the reality we have to figure out to build a world that functions.
I'm realizing you're one of those folks who've idealized "free markets' to the degree of worship. You have convinced yourself the market can solve all problems, when in reality it's one powerful tool of many but has winners, losers, and externalities that have to be accounted for elsewhere. It has a place, but not the only place. Individuals don't necessarily make decisions that support the collective needs.
There was a very simple-minded "philosopher" from the 20th century named Ayn Rand who championed similar ideas. They've been widely disproven but some idealistic high school kids still cling to her simple solutions for complex societal issues because they're inspiring and hopeful and nice to think about.
I'm not saying you're in that camp but we need to figure out complex problems with complex solutions and the market can only go so far down that road.
This post is good, because you finally come out of the closet and reveal that you are on board with the left-wing statist-collectivist politics of the AGW movement.
As shown in the IPCC exhibit, AGW has nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with collectivist-statist social engineering.
And you now reveal that you are good with that, proclaiming your support for alleviating poverty and gender inequality and all the rest of the AGW nonsense that has nothing to do with science, truth, or climate. At all.
And, like any good statist, you observe that the market is a "tool" but has "winners, losers, and externalities" that limit its usefulness. This is a damning indictment of your philosophy, which in this case is utilitarianism. Thinking of the free market as a "tool" in your little engineering toolbox where you call the shots (statism), but allow a little bit of "free market" ad hoc where you presumably see fit (forgetting the entire meaning of free, and thereby rendering the term "free market" meaningless.)
And then you orgasm with this little pearl: "Individuals don't necessarily make decisions that support the collective needs".
Does this sound familiar? Here is a quote from Karl Marx:
History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy. -Karl Marx
So what is your political philosophy? At the moment we can see that it is a blend of statism, collectivism, and utilitarianism. And these are three key ingredients of Marxism.
Why is that important? Because as is evident in the IPCC manifesto, the AGW agenda is essentially based on Marxism.
And your politics are in total agreement with this from what I can see. You probably don't even realize that you are a Marxist, because that label is pejorative and has largely been forgotten.
But when collectivism and utilitarianism are mixed to form a politco-economic plan, that plan is essentially that of Karl Marx.
So will you own this? You appear to be a Marxist, based on your stated philosophy.And interestingly you decided to bring up Ayn Rand, a staunch defender of individual rights and Capitalism, and get a little jab in. So the anti-Capitalist factor is in the mix also. Which further supports my contention that you are in lockstep with the AGW agenda.
Utilitarianism, collectivism, statism, social engineering, a little lip service to freedom - allowing it where it is a "useful" "tool". (And who wields this tool? The engineers! The men in charge of "allowing" things, THE STATE!)
You can't hide in your little scientific refuge where you feign objectivity. You are not objective, or scientific, from what I can tell. You have a definite agenda, and that agenda agrees with the IPCC manifesto, and that agenda is to destroy freedom, individualism, capitalism, and private property rights.
AGW in the window dressing. Tyranny is the window.
My friend's sister is a geologist, and has an interesting, if depressing theory. You know all that dark blue ice in the glaciers? It contains methane, and I can tell you after visiting Alaska, that the glaciers are melting like crazy.
Anyway, her theory is that earth used to have an atmosphere primarily made up of methane, and that dinosaurs were methane breathers. When the ice age hit, it froze the methane, kinda clearing the playing field for oxygen breathing life forms ( mammals in particular )
If she's right, we are all hosed. And she doesn't believe it is because of fossil fuels. She doesn't think there is anything we humans can do about it.
I'm going to need more info because Methane actually boils at -257 F. Unless the pressure of the ice keeps it sealed in it's frozen state, hard to believe with all the cracks ect.
There are many theories about the CO2 levels in the air...the idea that they trap heat is just a theory, not a proven fact. What these so called "scientists" don't account for is the unknown under the oceans. Geothermal vents put out more "greenhouse" gasses naturally in a year than mankind has ever produced and it's filtering out through the oceans. That is another theory they won't talk about because there is no money in it for them.
Actually, the short and simple word "so" is quite powerful in that it requires one to explain why their claim or information they shared is relevant. Apparently that poster was not impressed with your article describing the importance of a temperature taken on one day at one place on Earth. Neither am I.
I'm guessing that you were unimpressed with Sandy as well, JerseyGirl?
I'm going to need more info because Methane actually boils at -257 F. Unless the pressure of the ice keeps it sealed in it's frozen state, hard to believe with all the cracks ect.
There are many theories about the CO2 levels in the air...the idea that they trap heat is just a theory, not a proven fact. What these so called "scientists" don't account for is the unknown under the oceans. Geothermal vents put out more "greenhouse" gasses naturally in a year than mankind has ever produced and it's filtering out through the oceans. That is another theory they won't talk about because there is no money in it for them.
In contrast to your "layman's opinion", scientists (without your bizarre quotes) have a very strong understanding of geothermal vents and they can only account for a very, very small amount of change to the climate, at most.
There are many theories about the CO2 levels in the air...the idea that they trap heat is just a theory, not a proven fact.
Oh really. Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% CO2, would beg to differ. Today's Venus forecast: "Hot again today, with a high of 862 F. Sulfuric acid drizzle in the morning. Watch your step this afternoon, as puddles of molten lead are expected."
This post is good, because you finally come out of the closet and reveal that you are on board with the left-wing statist-collectivist politics of the AGW movement.
As shown in the IPCC exhibit, AGW has nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with collectivist-statist social engineering.
And you now reveal that you are good with that, proclaiming your support for alleviating poverty and gender inequality and all the rest of the AGW nonsense that has nothing to do with science, truth, or climate. At all.
And, like any good statist, you observe that the market is a "tool" but has "winners, losers, and externalities" that limit its usefulness. This is a damning indictment of your philosophy, which in this case is utilitarianism. Thinking of the free market as a "tool" in your little engineering toolbox where you call the shots (statism), but allow a little bit of "free market" ad hoc where you presumably see fit (forgetting the entire meaning of free, and thereby rendering the term "free market" meaningless.)
And then you orgasm with this little pearl: "Individuals don't necessarily make decisions that support the collective needs".
Does this sound familiar? Here is a quote from Karl Marx:
History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy. -Karl Marx
So what is your political philosophy? At the moment we can see that it is a blend of statism, collectivism, and utilitarianism. And these are three key ingredients of Marxism.
Why is that important? Because as is evident in the IPCC manifesto, the AGW agenda is essentially based on Marxism.
And your politics are in total agreement with this from what I can see. You probably don't even realize that you are a Marxist, because that label is pejorative and has largely been forgotten.
But when collectivism and utilitarianism are mixed to form a politco-economic plan, that plan is essentially that of Karl Marx.
So will you own this? You appear to be a Marxist, based on your stated philosophy.And interestingly you decided to bring up Ayn Rand, a staunch defender of individual rights and Capitalism, and get a little jab in. So the anti-Capitalist factor is in the mix also. Which further supports my contention that you are in lockstep with the AGW agenda.
Utilitarianism, collectivism, statism, social engineering, a little lip service to freedom - allowing it where it is a "useful" "tool". (And who wields this tool? The engineers! The men in charge of "allowing" things, THE STATE!)
You can't hide in your little scientific refuge where you feign objectivity. You are not objective, or scientific, from what I can tell. You have a definite agenda, and that agenda agrees with the IPCC manifesto, and that agenda is to destroy freedom, individualism, capitalism, and private property rights.
AGW in the window dressing. Tyranny is the window.
Nope. Very inaccurate and I'm not sure you know what a Marxist is - simply acknowledging we need police and city services or recognizing issues that need fixing doesn't make one a Marxist.
I recognize a problem of a warming planet that needs to be solved on many fronts. Propose your own and, if they work, I'll support your solutions.
But first, help me understand where you're coming from. What is your ideal concept of society? Is it everybody acting out of rabid self interest with no thought to their impact on others? What does it look like on the ground? How do we live? Obviously the government-driven suburban model doesn't work, nor does the urban in your vision because cities require interdependence between one another, just like the American pioneers.
The idyllic rural model can only serve so many and is very inconvenient for masses so they're going to collect near each other. So, help me understand what your vision for the world looks like. Maybe I'll like it and join your team!
One small piece of the world is not reflective of the entire world. I'm sure you know that. We know - from deep core samples, from geological layers - that the earth took 5,000 years to warm as much as ours is in a century today. There's no comparison.
"I think" "I believe". I'm tired of it. I'm tired of your willful ignorance. I'm sorry but we have sophisticated research that answers your questions, responds to your doubts. There's nothing to believe. That's how science works; it's not like faith.
If you have better research, you're welcome to provide it and the conclusions can be reassessed by all the global scientific organizations if it is found to be credible.
Besides (maybe) paying taxes, how much of your own money have you spent on combating climate change?
I'm guessing that you were unimpressed with Sandy as well, JerseyGirl?
Were you impressed by the 1821 hurricane that flooded New York City to the extent that the Hudson and East Rivers joined up to Canal Street? (link)
Did emissions from Fulton's steamships cause that one?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
