62% of Americans are afraid to speak their minds on politics
This is a continuation of the topic 62% of Americans are afraid to speak their minds on politics.
Talk Pro and Con
Join LibraryThing to post.
1kiparsky
>232 Cubby.R.S.: I think black people in general
That is the sort of statement we'd like to try to avoid, since it can only express a stereotype. I work with a lot of Black folks and I can tell you that such statements are in general unsupportable in reality. In the sense that we've talked about, that is in fact a statement that I would call "racist" in that it tends to support racially-driven stereotypes and reduce people to the stereotypes that are portrayed. I'll say again, this does not mean that I'm calling you a "racist", since that label doesn't make sense applied to people, but I would ask you to reconsider the thoughts that led you to that statement and maybe try to ask yourself how you got there.
Yes, it is true that there are many great Black comedians, and in fact some of the greatest artists in that genre have been Black. However, that has more to say about the areas in which we allow Black people to succeed (this is again the same role that we talked about before) and less about what "Black people in general" like. Yes, it is also true that a lot of Black people enjoy comedy - it's also true that a lot of white people enjoy comedy, but it's hard to imagine someone saying "white people generally like comedy". (Aside: this is why the tropes about "Stuff White People Like" are funny... and why the same tropes would certainly not work if it were "Stuff Black People Like". As an exercise, ask yourself why the latter would make people very uncomfortable, even as they're willing to say things like "I think black people in general...")
There have been many great physicists who are white, and many white people have been good physicists, but we wouldn't say "I think white people in general like physics". You can repeat this example as often as you like, just swap out areas of cultural inquiry until the point is made.
That is the sort of statement we'd like to try to avoid, since it can only express a stereotype. I work with a lot of Black folks and I can tell you that such statements are in general unsupportable in reality. In the sense that we've talked about, that is in fact a statement that I would call "racist" in that it tends to support racially-driven stereotypes and reduce people to the stereotypes that are portrayed. I'll say again, this does not mean that I'm calling you a "racist", since that label doesn't make sense applied to people, but I would ask you to reconsider the thoughts that led you to that statement and maybe try to ask yourself how you got there.
Yes, it is true that there are many great Black comedians, and in fact some of the greatest artists in that genre have been Black. However, that has more to say about the areas in which we allow Black people to succeed (this is again the same role that we talked about before) and less about what "Black people in general" like. Yes, it is also true that a lot of Black people enjoy comedy - it's also true that a lot of white people enjoy comedy, but it's hard to imagine someone saying "white people generally like comedy". (Aside: this is why the tropes about "Stuff White People Like" are funny... and why the same tropes would certainly not work if it were "Stuff Black People Like". As an exercise, ask yourself why the latter would make people very uncomfortable, even as they're willing to say things like "I think black people in general...")
There have been many great physicists who are white, and many white people have been good physicists, but we wouldn't say "I think white people in general like physics". You can repeat this example as often as you like, just swap out areas of cultural inquiry until the point is made.
2Cubby.R.S.
>1 kiparsky:
White people in general like NASCAR more than blacks, because they have a cultural attachment to racing? White people in general enjoy the NHL more than blacks?
As a strange and older study, a park found out that black families were much more likely to use the park for picnicking and playing ball:
so for example:
Black/white differences in responses concerning activities
engaged in at state parks were generally consistent with
participation patterns in the 31 activities (not limited to state
parks) included in the analysis. Out of 31 activities, blacks
were significantly more likely than whites to participate in 3 --
all of which are outdoor sports (softball/baseball, outdoor
basketball, and soccer). These three activities are generally
consistent with an orientation to "developed sites," "organized
events," and "meeting people." Whites were significantly more
likely than blacks to participate in 15 activities, many of which
tend to be associated with water, snow or ice, and natural
environments. These activities are likely to be associated with
a "natural environment," an absence of "organized events," and
opportunities for "getting away from people." Controlling for
social background variables reduced the number of activities
where there was a significant black/white difference from 18 to
10. However, the same overall pattern remains: blacks are more
likely than whites to participate in softball/baseball, and
whites more likely than blacks to participate in activities
oriented to water, snow and ice, and natural environments.
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_ne160/gtr_ne160_020.pdf
So, I again do not believe that it is color, per se; but I do believe that the community or cultural influences of the area drive many choices. But it seems to me what you're aiming for is a way of integrating blacks into a conversation without calling them black. If you want me to say that inner city kids prefer activities of such and such and or kids in rural areas tend to prefer other activities, then I have no issue concluding that culture is a greater influence than race. In fact, that is my general stance.
If you are attempting to say that Hollywood is into appealing to the masses and uses whites, as they are the larger demographic, and attempting to appeal to them by using individuals with that sort of likeness in order to generate income, I would agree. I am not necessarily attached to the character, nor do I feel the need to associate with them, so it is easy for me to prefer an actor or actress based on ability.
White people in general like NASCAR more than blacks, because they have a cultural attachment to racing? White people in general enjoy the NHL more than blacks?
As a strange and older study, a park found out that black families were much more likely to use the park for picnicking and playing ball:
so for example:
Black/white differences in responses concerning activities
engaged in at state parks were generally consistent with
participation patterns in the 31 activities (not limited to state
parks) included in the analysis. Out of 31 activities, blacks
were significantly more likely than whites to participate in 3 --
all of which are outdoor sports (softball/baseball, outdoor
basketball, and soccer). These three activities are generally
consistent with an orientation to "developed sites," "organized
events," and "meeting people." Whites were significantly more
likely than blacks to participate in 15 activities, many of which
tend to be associated with water, snow or ice, and natural
environments. These activities are likely to be associated with
a "natural environment," an absence of "organized events," and
opportunities for "getting away from people." Controlling for
social background variables reduced the number of activities
where there was a significant black/white difference from 18 to
10. However, the same overall pattern remains: blacks are more
likely than whites to participate in softball/baseball, and
whites more likely than blacks to participate in activities
oriented to water, snow and ice, and natural environments.
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_ne160/gtr_ne160_020.pdf
So, I again do not believe that it is color, per se; but I do believe that the community or cultural influences of the area drive many choices. But it seems to me what you're aiming for is a way of integrating blacks into a conversation without calling them black. If you want me to say that inner city kids prefer activities of such and such and or kids in rural areas tend to prefer other activities, then I have no issue concluding that culture is a greater influence than race. In fact, that is my general stance.
If you are attempting to say that Hollywood is into appealing to the masses and uses whites, as they are the larger demographic, and attempting to appeal to them by using individuals with that sort of likeness in order to generate income, I would agree. I am not necessarily attached to the character, nor do I feel the need to associate with them, so it is easy for me to prefer an actor or actress based on ability.
3John5918
William Barr told Murdoch to 'muzzle' Fox News Trump critic, new book says (Guardian)
The attorney general, William Barr, told Rupert Murdoch to “muzzle” Andrew Napolitano, a prominent Fox News personality who became a critic of Donald Trump, according to a new book about the rightwing TV network...
The attorney general, William Barr, told Rupert Murdoch to “muzzle” Andrew Napolitano, a prominent Fox News personality who became a critic of Donald Trump, according to a new book about the rightwing TV network...
4Carnophile
>3 John5918:
LOL. From your link:
LOL. From your link:
Citing an unnamed source, Stelter writes that Trump “was so incensed by the judge’s TV broadcasts that he had implored Barr to send Rupert a message in person … about ‘muzzling the judge’. (Trump) wanted the nation’s top law enforcement official to convey just how atrocious Napolitano’s legal analysis had been.”
5Cubby.R.S.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/man-accused-of-attempted-murder-and-hat...
https://www.cnn.com/search?q=Steve+sinclair
Another story that doesn't fit the narrative...
https://www.cnn.com/search?q=Steve+sinclair
Another story that doesn't fit the narrative...
6prosfilaes
>5 Cubby.R.S.: Another story that doesn't fit the narrative...
It fits your narrative. With 15,000 murders in the US a year, it's funny how Cubby Times would spend all its time reporting on assaults and attempted murders by black people.
It fits your narrative. With 15,000 murders in the US a year, it's funny how Cubby Times would spend all its time reporting on assaults and attempted murders by black people.
7John5918
>5 Cubby.R.S.: Another story that doesn't fit the narrative...
Which narrative is that? A man kills someone and is arrested and charged. He claims to be a psychopath, but whether he is medically diagnosed as such or not, he is clearly a disturbed individual. The "narrative" might be that more money needs to be spent on mental health issues.
Which narrative is that? A man kills someone and is arrested and charged. He claims to be a psychopath, but whether he is medically diagnosed as such or not, he is clearly a disturbed individual. The "narrative" might be that more money needs to be spent on mental health issues.
8Cubby.R.S.
https://flipboard.com/article/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fprotester...
https://www.cnn.com/search?q=Ted+wheeler
Portland mob appeaser asked to resign. Who thought the rioters would negotiate? Haha, CNN wouldn't cover this.
https://www.cnn.com/search?q=Ted+wheeler
Portland mob appeaser asked to resign. Who thought the rioters would negotiate? Haha, CNN wouldn't cover this.
9prosfilaes
It's amazing; you say "wait until info is revealed before passing judgment" when police shoot someone in https://www.librarything.com/topic/323191#7248665 , but when a black man attacks someone in >5 Cubby.R.S.:, you demand that everyone report it immediately.
10John5918
>8 Cubby.R.S.: appeaser
What a loaded word. Negotiating the end of a conflict through dialogue is not "appeasement", and somebody who genuinely attempts to do so will often find themselves unpopular with both sides. Were those who negotiated the end of the Northern Ireland Troubles "appeasers"? Or the Sudanese or Colombian civil wars, or apartheid, or any of the numerous conflicts which have been ended by peaceful negotiations? Of course peaceful negotiation doesn't always succeed, but statistics show that nonviolent means are twice as successful as volence in this regard.
What a loaded word. Negotiating the end of a conflict through dialogue is not "appeasement", and somebody who genuinely attempts to do so will often find themselves unpopular with both sides. Were those who negotiated the end of the Northern Ireland Troubles "appeasers"? Or the Sudanese or Colombian civil wars, or apartheid, or any of the numerous conflicts which have been ended by peaceful negotiations? Of course peaceful negotiation doesn't always succeed, but statistics show that nonviolent means are twice as successful as volence in this regard.
11DugsBooks
Speaking your mind on politics while at work has always been a great way to lose your job - unless you are parroting the owner’s opinions in a manner they like.
12Cubby.R.S.
>9 prosfilaes:
Well, the man confessed.
The teenager being called a white supremacist in Kenosha; turns out that evidence suggests someone shot at him first. Probably not reported by your sources, the great narrative painters. Also, after Blake finger raped his x girlfriend, and fought through tasers and tried to steal a car and had a knife, well the poor innocent smuck gets on a poster as a freedom fighter while this dumb teenager is branded a white nationalist. Just honest coverage.
Well, the man confessed.
The teenager being called a white supremacist in Kenosha; turns out that evidence suggests someone shot at him first. Probably not reported by your sources, the great narrative painters. Also, after Blake finger raped his x girlfriend, and fought through tasers and tried to steal a car and had a knife, well the poor innocent smuck gets on a poster as a freedom fighter while this dumb teenager is branded a white nationalist. Just honest coverage.
13Cubby.R.S.
CNN painting
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/30/us/portland-protest-fatal-shooting/index.html
Video sounds like... We got a Trumper right before the shots. Really wasn't necessary to write the story they did. Hell this evidence was out there.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctw...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/30/us/portland-protest-fatal-shooting/index.html
Video sounds like... We got a Trumper right before the shots. Really wasn't necessary to write the story they did. Hell this evidence was out there.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctw...
14Cubby.R.S.
A search for guillotine in CNN comes up for a good mother's day brunch...haha
https://www.cnn.com/search?q=Guillotine
https://www.newsweek.com/protest-trump-doll-guillotine-outside-white-house-rnc-1...
https://www.cnn.com/search?q=Guillotine
https://www.newsweek.com/protest-trump-doll-guillotine-outside-white-house-rnc-1...
15prosfilaes
>12 Cubby.R.S.: after Blake finger raped his x girlfriend, and fought through tasers and tried to steal a car and had a knife,
As far as I know the details of the sexual assault charges have never been released and it was his car. Libel doesn't impress anyone.
Oh, and and this is the very case that you told us we should "wait until info is revealed before passing judgment" on, and you're making up details about it.
And probably for the last time, there are 15,000 cases a year of murders in the US. What makes a crime worthy of national news, and why have those that you have been mentioning so worthy?
As far as I know the details of the sexual assault charges have never been released and it was his car. Libel doesn't impress anyone.
Oh, and and this is the very case that you told us we should "wait until info is revealed before passing judgment" on, and you're making up details about it.
And probably for the last time, there are 15,000 cases a year of murders in the US. What makes a crime worthy of national news, and why have those that you have been mentioning so worthy?
16Cubby.R.S.
>15 prosfilaes:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jacob-blake-sexual-assault
That's right, libs only care about believing some women.
And assuredly not for the last time, CNN and the like seem to conveniently forget to mention an awful similar type of inconvenient stories while painting a convenient portrait on others.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jacob-blake-sexual-assault
That's right, libs only care about believing some women.
And assuredly not for the last time, CNN and the like seem to conveniently forget to mention an awful similar type of inconvenient stories while painting a convenient portrait on others.
17prosfilaes
>16 Cubby.R.S.: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jacob-blake-sexual-assault
Which says that your statement is a lie; the article calls it his car.
CNN and the like seem to conveniently forget to mention an awful similar type of inconvenient stories
So you like your delusions and don't want to do anything that might disturb them. Nor do you care to engage with other people, instead of just complaining.
You cannot establish bias this way. You certainly can't convince anyone of bias this way. You refuse to even do step one and state what you expect CNN to cover.
Right now, it seems like you want CNN to cover a bunch of local crimes that would be fodder mainly for a racist rag trying to establish that minorities are causing all the problems in the US. Continue to complain that CNN isn't covering your pet story (they covered "police execute no-knock warrant on pound and shoot a dozen dogs"; why won't they cover "black man kicks dog"?!?), and I will just have to ignore you.
Which says that your statement is a lie; the article calls it his car.
CNN and the like seem to conveniently forget to mention an awful similar type of inconvenient stories
So you like your delusions and don't want to do anything that might disturb them. Nor do you care to engage with other people, instead of just complaining.
You cannot establish bias this way. You certainly can't convince anyone of bias this way. You refuse to even do step one and state what you expect CNN to cover.
Right now, it seems like you want CNN to cover a bunch of local crimes that would be fodder mainly for a racist rag trying to establish that minorities are causing all the problems in the US. Continue to complain that CNN isn't covering your pet story (they covered "police execute no-knock warrant on pound and shoot a dozen dogs"; why won't they cover "black man kicks dog"?!?), and I will just have to ignore you.
18John5918
>16 Cubby.R.S.: believing some women
Saying, "As far as I know the details of the sexual assault charges have never been released" has no connection with not "believing some women".
Saying, "As far as I know the details of the sexual assault charges have never been released" has no connection with not "believing some women".
19kiparsky
Cubby, if being accused of sexual assault, in your mind, means that someone should be shot out of hand, then you believe that the Secret Service should turn around and blow away that serial assaulter of women that they're charged with guarding.
Do you really mean to be recommending the assassination of the President?
Do you really mean to be recommending the assassination of the President?
20Cubby.R.S.
The fact that you baaaaaaa'd little sheepies can't see why these things make a difference is quite scary. None of you come across as dumb, so you're either blatantly ignoring the issue or you're evil desire to destroy the country is quite strong.
21John5918
>20 Cubby.R.S.:
You're not answering the question, are you, nor even stating the reasons for your opinion? Just meaningless insults. Classic diversionary tactic.
you're either blatantly ignoring the issue or you're {sic} evil desire to destroy the country is quite strong
Clearly people are not ignoring the issue as they are stating their own view on the issue and explaining it, which you yourself are failing to do. Your attempt to label anyone who disagrees with your particular political views as desiring to destroy the country is really quite pathetic.
You're not answering the question, are you, nor even stating the reasons for your opinion? Just meaningless insults. Classic diversionary tactic.
you're either blatantly ignoring the issue or you're {sic} evil desire to destroy the country is quite strong
Clearly people are not ignoring the issue as they are stating their own view on the issue and explaining it, which you yourself are failing to do. Your attempt to label anyone who disagrees with your particular political views as desiring to destroy the country is really quite pathetic.
22Cubby.R.S.
>21 John5918:
Oh great King Condescension, you're questions are boring, useless and distracting. I'm not diverting, you are approaching the most irrelevant portion of a statement to the topic in order to feed presumption of Conservative ignorance.
Since your background is fed primarily from sources better found in the shithole in your yard, you wouldn't be keen on issues primarily in the US political sphere, which ignore any other potential stance. The me too movement made quite clearly against Republicans only applies to Republicans, because Liberals think it's necessary to cancel anyone that isn't useful to their plight. Believe all accusations, unless they are against non-Republican individuals.
Oh great King Condescension, you're questions are boring, useless and distracting. I'm not diverting, you are approaching the most irrelevant portion of a statement to the topic in order to feed presumption of Conservative ignorance.
Since your background is fed primarily from sources better found in the shithole in your yard, you wouldn't be keen on issues primarily in the US political sphere, which ignore any other potential stance. The me too movement made quite clearly against Republicans only applies to Republicans, because Liberals think it's necessary to cancel anyone that isn't useful to their plight. Believe all accusations, unless they are against non-Republican individuals.
23kiparsky
Cubby, do you actually have a position that you want to defend here? If so, what is it?
Or are you just blithering because you're waiting for your meds?
Or are you just blithering because you're waiting for your meds?
24John5918
>22 Cubby.R.S.:
The only bit of that which makes any sense to me is the bit about sources found in the shithole in my yard. Back in the days before internet and mobile phones and all the modern paraphernalia which allows you to propagate such nonsense, I used to get the airmail version of the Guardian Weekly. It always arrived several weeks late as I was far from any proper postal service, but it still made good reading, including as it did weekly digests of Le Monde and the Washington Post as well as the Grauniad itself. It was printed on thin airmail paper which made very good bog paper, so after everyone had read it we used to cut it into squares and hang it on a nail in the pit latrine. Truly a multi-purpose newspaper.
The only bit of that which makes any sense to me is the bit about sources found in the shithole in my yard. Back in the days before internet and mobile phones and all the modern paraphernalia which allows you to propagate such nonsense, I used to get the airmail version of the Guardian Weekly. It always arrived several weeks late as I was far from any proper postal service, but it still made good reading, including as it did weekly digests of Le Monde and the Washington Post as well as the Grauniad itself. It was printed on thin airmail paper which made very good bog paper, so after everyone had read it we used to cut it into squares and hang it on a nail in the pit latrine. Truly a multi-purpose newspaper.
25Cubby.R.S.
The only connection Bill Clinton is given to Epstein, from CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/us/ghislaine-maxwell-newly-unsealed-documents-eps...
They smooth it over nicely. They like to approach Republicans such as Kavanaugh quite differently. You see, I don't know why CNN bothers to pretend.
It appears now, dbag Biden is going to condemn the riots and try pinning it on Trump. Of course ignorant viewers will buy it, but most know federal help is constantly refused and even blamed.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/us/ghislaine-maxwell-newly-unsealed-documents-eps...
They smooth it over nicely. They like to approach Republicans such as Kavanaugh quite differently. You see, I don't know why CNN bothers to pretend.
It appears now, dbag Biden is going to condemn the riots and try pinning it on Trump. Of course ignorant viewers will buy it, but most know federal help is constantly refused and even blamed.
26kiparsky
>25 Cubby.R.S.: Is Trump is not responsible for what happens in Trump's America?
27Cubby.R.S.
>26 kiparsky:
If he was a fascist like Biden and declared State and Constitutional rights a non issue, otherwise... Not entirely. But yeah, Democrats like fascistic leaders with socialist policy, so you would blame him.
If he was a fascist like Biden and declared State and Constitutional rights a non issue, otherwise... Not entirely. But yeah, Democrats like fascistic leaders with socialist policy, so you would blame him.
28kiparsky
>28 kiparsky: Oh, interesting. You think Biden is a fascist... any basis for that, or is it just more of the shit you make up on the fly and hope nobody calls you on it?
29John5918
>28 kiparsky:
Is it on this thread or another (one loses track) that Cubby calls Biden a Nazi, and refuses to either back down or produce evidence when challenged?
Is it on this thread or another (one loses track) that Cubby calls Biden a Nazi, and refuses to either back down or produce evidence when challenged?
30Cubby.R.S.
>28 kiparsky:
What would you call an unconstitutional mandate? Masks, Obamacare...? Fascism?
>29 John5918:
Skew comments much?
What would you call an unconstitutional mandate? Masks, Obamacare...? Fascism?
>29 John5918:
Skew comments much?
31kiparsky
>29 John5918: I think that's a different thread. It's so hard to keep track, it happens so often.
Poor thing just can't seem to confine himself to the truth, it's real shame, isn't it?
Poor thing just can't seem to confine himself to the truth, it's real shame, isn't it?
32John5918
>30 Cubby.R.S.:
Are you trying to conflate personal protective equipment and universal health care with fascism? Really?
Not sure what "skew comments much" means, but if you're calling Biden both a Nazi and a fascist, at least there's some consistency in your approach.
Are you trying to conflate personal protective equipment and universal health care with fascism? Really?
Not sure what "skew comments much" means, but if you're calling Biden both a Nazi and a fascist, at least there's some consistency in your approach.
33Cubby.R.S.
If any of you dare to look at some truth, your half murdered conscience would be overwhelmed. Luckily you don't believe in truth, just some chemical firing and inequality.
34kiparsky
>30 Cubby.R.S.: The question is, what is your case for calling Biden a fascist? If you can't state it in plain words then, then you're telling me you can't even say what it would mean for your claim to be true - in other words, you would be conceding that it was a lie straight out of the gate.
That would save some time, of course, but y'all TMCJ folks seem to like to dance around for a while before running away in disgrace, so let's just see if you're able to come up with anything.
That would save some time, of course, but y'all TMCJ folks seem to like to dance around for a while before running away in disgrace, so let's just see if you're able to come up with anything.
35John5918
>33 Cubby.R.S.:
Again, insults instead of explanations. I endorse >34 kiparsky:'s request, just tell us why you think Biden is a fascist.
Again, insults instead of explanations. I endorse >34 kiparsky:'s request, just tell us why you think Biden is a fascist.
36Cubby.R.S.
>34 kiparsky:
Couldn't be more plain than his fucking policy, are you fucking joking? >30 Cubby.R.S.:
All for our best interest though, surely. That's how it starts, idiots vote for them... Yada yada, same fucking story.
Couldn't be more plain than his fucking policy, are you fucking joking? >30 Cubby.R.S.:
All for our best interest though, surely. That's how it starts, idiots vote for them... Yada yada, same fucking story.
37John5918
Cubby, do you actually understand what fascism is?
The first couple of definitions which come up on Google are:
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Biden?
The first couple of definitions which come up on Google are:
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Biden?
38Cubby.R.S.
>37 John5918:
John, I realize it sounds like you need to be mean to be a fascist, but policy forced on citizens that is not constitutional, forcing them to do certain things against their will is?
They are also silencing dissent in the scientific community on climate change, covid, abortion, etc.
John, I realize it sounds like you need to be mean to be a fascist, but policy forced on citizens that is not constitutional, forcing them to do certain things against their will is?
They are also silencing dissent in the scientific community on climate change, covid, abortion, etc.
39kiparsky
>36 Cubby.R.S.: What do you mean by fascism and what specific policies does Biden propose that seem to you to be fascist, and what is your reasoning?
I know it's a lot to ask of a twelve year old, but you're going to have to learn to communicate with adults some day, might as well start now.
I know it's a lot to ask of a twelve year old, but you're going to have to learn to communicate with adults some day, might as well start now.
40jjwilson61
Why is requiring your mouth and nose be covered fascist but requiring that your genitals be covered isn't? It's amazing that right wingers make such a huge deal out of a face mask.
41Cubby.R.S.
>40 jjwilson61:
?
The absolute lunacy in these threads reminds me of why people like me end up in reeducation camps or worse. The antiquated ideals of the left recalls Suetonius and the perversion recorded in the Twelve Caesars.
I am honestly not against a peaceful agreement to try and split the States into multiple nations, and I do not see a reason that this would not make us stronger. I think it's too late to save the nation and I truly do not want Civil War.
Perhaps divide from Virginias to Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, to the Dakotas on Down. Make Cal, Washington and Oregon a third Country. We can name them The Constitutional States of America, The Democratic Socialist Union and the WTF trio of lunacy.
What does everyone think?
?
The absolute lunacy in these threads reminds me of why people like me end up in reeducation camps or worse. The antiquated ideals of the left recalls Suetonius and the perversion recorded in the Twelve Caesars.
I am honestly not against a peaceful agreement to try and split the States into multiple nations, and I do not see a reason that this would not make us stronger. I think it's too late to save the nation and I truly do not want Civil War.
Perhaps divide from Virginias to Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, to the Dakotas on Down. Make Cal, Washington and Oregon a third Country. We can name them The Constitutional States of America, The Democratic Socialist Union and the WTF trio of lunacy.
What does everyone think?
42kiparsky
>41 Cubby.R.S.: Personally I think you're trying to avoid the simple problem of how you want to support your claim that Biden is a "fascist" by spewing some arrant nonsense and hoping that people bite on it.
Since nobody thinks you believe that, how about you go back to trying to make your case for your latest insane claim that Biden is a "fascist". Because again, if you can't state that case and then support it, then you're asserting something you have no reason to believe to be true, in the hopes that you can get someone else to believe it... and that's lying, and lying is naughty.
Since nobody thinks you believe that, how about you go back to trying to make your case for your latest insane claim that Biden is a "fascist". Because again, if you can't state that case and then support it, then you're asserting something you have no reason to believe to be true, in the hopes that you can get someone else to believe it... and that's lying, and lying is naughty.
43Cubby.R.S.
>42 kiparsky:
This is why I feel hopeless. It doesn't seem like a discussion is actually possible. I really think the discussion of secession needs to be imminent. I really do not see hope for the country.
See also >30 Cubby.R.S.: >36 Cubby.R.S.:
This is why I feel hopeless. It doesn't seem like a discussion is actually possible. I really think the discussion of secession needs to be imminent. I really do not see hope for the country.
See also >30 Cubby.R.S.: >36 Cubby.R.S.:
44kiparsky
>43 Cubby.R.S.: In other words, you really don't see any hope for your claim that Biden is a fascist. Got it.
I have to admit, this is a really creative way of trying to get out of the hole you dug for yourself, but I'm afraid that just means your lie comes with style points.
Okay, so while I'm bookmarking this as one of your lie-and-run-away moments, tell us about your plan for secession. What do you suppose your resurrected CSA is going to do by way of an economy? All you've got there is some extractive wealth in Texas and LA, and that's not viable without regular infusions of rescue capital from the United States treasury, which you will no longer have access to?
You don't have a tax base, you don't have industry, you don't have anything to attract a tourist (oh, wait, Disney World? ...too bad Florida is sinking)
You're not even going to have any migrant labor to make the agricultural sector work, since California will be welcoming the people that you'll have armed guards shooting at from towers.
So... apart from a fit of pique and a desperate hope to get out of talking about yet another lie that you got caught in, what's the point?
I have to admit, this is a really creative way of trying to get out of the hole you dug for yourself, but I'm afraid that just means your lie comes with style points.
Okay, so while I'm bookmarking this as one of your lie-and-run-away moments, tell us about your plan for secession. What do you suppose your resurrected CSA is going to do by way of an economy? All you've got there is some extractive wealth in Texas and LA, and that's not viable without regular infusions of rescue capital from the United States treasury, which you will no longer have access to?
You don't have a tax base, you don't have industry, you don't have anything to attract a tourist (oh, wait, Disney World? ...too bad Florida is sinking)
You're not even going to have any migrant labor to make the agricultural sector work, since California will be welcoming the people that you'll have armed guards shooting at from towers.
So... apart from a fit of pique and a desperate hope to get out of talking about yet another lie that you got caught in, what's the point?
45Cubby.R.S.
>44 kiparsky:
This is exactly what I mean. I'm not really sure if you're even attempting to read anything. Biden intends to mandate masks as he mandated insurance. Force nuns to pay for abortion? As Obama intended to silence Tea Party groups and did, Biden will do worse. Policy for green energy that will put waste on earth and silence dissent on the science of climate change is certain using executive order. The list goes on...
I would be willing to take the risk. Dead industry has moved out of many former boomtown locations due to extreme taxation. I don't think it would be hard to bring in business. When it comes to it, I say a three year relocation program for those opting to relocate. I would have to move, which may suck a bit as I like my state, but it would be tough to deal with Socialism. I think population could dictate the portion of debt each nation would undertake.
I think it's a better solution if we could agree to it, after this election I think we're screwed either way.
This is exactly what I mean. I'm not really sure if you're even attempting to read anything. Biden intends to mandate masks as he mandated insurance. Force nuns to pay for abortion? As Obama intended to silence Tea Party groups and did, Biden will do worse. Policy for green energy that will put waste on earth and silence dissent on the science of climate change is certain using executive order. The list goes on...
I would be willing to take the risk. Dead industry has moved out of many former boomtown locations due to extreme taxation. I don't think it would be hard to bring in business. When it comes to it, I say a three year relocation program for those opting to relocate. I would have to move, which may suck a bit as I like my state, but it would be tough to deal with Socialism. I think population could dictate the portion of debt each nation would undertake.
I think it's a better solution if we could agree to it, after this election I think we're screwed either way.
46kiparsky
>45 Cubby.R.S.:
Wow, getting you to say what you mean is like trying to get a drink out of a Vogon. So you believe that:
Taking these in turn.
Wow, getting you to say what you mean is like trying to get a drink out of a Vogon. So you believe that:
- Biden intends to mandate masks as he mandated insurance.
- Force nuns to pay for abortion?
- As Obama intended to silence Tea Party groups and did, Biden will do worse.
- Policy for green energy that will put waste on earth and
- silence dissent on the science of climate change is certain using executive order.
Taking these in turn.
- Remind us now, just exactly how did he "mandate insurance"? And once you've dredged that out of your memory, or maybe looked it up, do you really think that's a likely mechanism for mandating the wearing of masks? Or maybe you didn't mean what you said, and you just meant that he's going to mandate the wearing of masks, and you don't mean that he's going to use tax policy to do it? You should really learn to express yourself clearly, my boy. It'll save you scads of trouble in the long run.
- Forcing nuns to pay for abortion, huh? Well, if they want to have an abortion, why shouldn't they pay for it? You think Trump has a policy of free abortions for nuns? First I've heard of that.
- Remind us again, just how did Obama "silence Tea Party groups"? And what's this spooky "worse" that Biden will do? Remember, we're trying for facts here, not makey-uppy stuff that comes out of your head, or more likely, out of someone else's head. And if you're getting stuff that other people make up for you, try to get the details before you post it, because you know I'm going to ask and it'll just be embarrassing for you and a waste of time for the rest of us
- Policy for green energy, huh? Doesn't sound so bad. Particularly if you're trying to get yourself set up in the southern half of North America, which is going to be substantially smaller if we don't get something done pretty soon. But darling boy, that's going to come from Congress, like all legislation. Tell me more about how that's fascist in your mind.
- Silence dissent? Well, okay, that sounds scary for sure. Now, what do you suppose you mean by that? Do you mean that people who don't understand science will be somehow unable to get their papers published? I think you'll find that's called peer review, old boy. Or do you mean the Storm Troopers will break up cells of the Black Cloud and smash up their printing presses and burn their pamphlets about how coal doesn't really cause global warming, it's really caused by, I don't know, whatever you people think causes the global warming that you can see happening all around you. Say more about this "silence dissent" business. I'm really quite curious and keen to be convinced by your persuasive arguments and the facts that you can bring to the table to support your suddenly very plausible claims.
47Cubby.R.S.
1. Obamacare mandated and forced everyone to carry health insurance, Biden has said he will mandate masks. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-mask-mandate-joe-biden-kamala-harris-three-mon...
2.https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/california-doubles-down-on-rule-forcing-catholic-nuns-to-pay-for-abortion-63678
3.https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups
4/5. His plan means to get to net zero by 2050, with no change climate alarmists predict our end in every 3 years. This is a radical plan considering the resources it will take and the confiscation of personal property, including automobiles. Is the intent to end nonessential travel... Holy fuck is that wonderful. Just throwing money at it apparently solves the issue. I say power grab and nothing more. https://www.autoblog.com/2019/03/26/green-new-deal-transportation/
2.https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/california-doubles-down-on-rule-forcing-catholic-nuns-to-pay-for-abortion-63678
3.https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups
4/5. His plan means to get to net zero by 2050, with no change climate alarmists predict our end in every 3 years. This is a radical plan considering the resources it will take and the confiscation of personal property, including automobiles. Is the intent to end nonessential travel... Holy fuck is that wonderful. Just throwing money at it apparently solves the issue. I say power grab and nothing more. https://www.autoblog.com/2019/03/26/green-new-deal-transportation/
48kiparsky
- Let's leave aside the comparison to Obamacare... this is actually a huge favor to you, since ACA is one of the most popular and successful laws this country has ever had, so arguing against it really isn't going to turn out well for you, just as it hasn't worked well for Dickless Donald. Let's focus instead on what you're actually shitting yourself about. What exactly is it that seems to you "fascist" about a mask mandate? And what policies would you recommend instead to control the current pandemic until such time as we have an effective vaccine-based herd immunity?
- Oh, I see. You're a bit confused there. This is about requiring people to have compliant health care plans. That's a good thing, we want to ensure that workplaces offer fully compliant health care plans. Calling this "fascist" seems a bit desperate. Please clarify, just exactly what is "fascist" about requiring everyone to abide by the same laws?
- This one is interesting. I've been involved with a couple of organizations that have experienced "aggressive scrutiny" by the federal government, specifically CISPES and Earth First!. It's a long and established habit of the federal government, and if the worst they're getting is a visit from the tax man, those groups should count themselves lucky. I'm curious why nobody ever heard these "yelps for liberty" from anyone on the right when Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney were blown up by the FBI, or when Fred Hampton was murdered in his bed, to cite two notorious examples. Still, two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm against political harassment of non-violent political movements whether I agree with them or not. I would certainly want to see future administrations draw a sharp line between enforcing laws and policing political dissent, regardless of the nature of the dissent. But when we look at the cases you're talking about, it actually turns out that the IRS was subjecting groups with "Occupy" and "Progressive" in their name to the same scrutiny - so it's maybe more of an excess of zeal than anything that rises to the level of "fascism". We can certainly dig into this, but considering the history on this, if you're bitching about someone having to fill out extra paperwork and calling that "fascism", I would want to hear what you have to say about the assaults on the labor movement in the early part of the 20th century, for example the Ludlow massacre, or the disruption of the Communist Party in the US in the middle of the 20th century, or the attacks on the Black Panthers and other Black liberation movements starting in the '60s and continuing through the '80s, or the infiltration and disruption of Earth First! in the '80s and '90s. There's a long history of the Federal government attacking movements for political change. It didn't start in 2010, and if you're only concerned with the attacks on the people you agree with, I'm afraid your cries of "fascism" are going to sound a little hollow and more than a little opportunistic.
- Net zero by 2050 is a policy goal that is commonly accepted as absolutely necessary by people who know what they're talking about. If you don't know what you're talking about, maybe it sounds extreme, but I'm sure you're capable of learning. In any case, Net zero by 2050 is a policy objective. What specific policy proposals are you calling fascist here? I mean actual policy proposals that Biden is actually considering, not random shit that you make up in your head.
- Are you dropping the "silence dissent" part? If you want to keep it, you'll have to bring something to the table. What do you mean by "silence dissent", and how do you think Biden is going to accomplish this?
49John5918
>46 kiparsky: Forcing nuns to pay for abortion, huh? Well, if they want to have an abortion, why shouldn't they pay for it?
Reminds me of the old Catholic joke that a rumour went around that priests and nuns would be able get married. A lot of priests resigned, because they thought it meant they had to marry the nuns.
Reminds me of the old Catholic joke that a rumour went around that priests and nuns would be able get married. A lot of priests resigned, because they thought it meant they had to marry the nuns.
51John5918
Worth mentioning perhaps that universal affordable health care, a new concern for green energy, and the compulsory wearing of masks in public are pretty mainstream across the world. They are not part of some fascist fringe. While you may disagree with the mechanism being used to achieve universal health care, it is not fascism, any more than making people pay taxes is fascism, even though those taxes are used for things such as nuclear weapons and the military which many taxpayers would not want to finance. Green energy, apart from being an essential aspect of dealing with the climate crisis, is proving to be more and more economically viable for businesses in many countries. And wearing masks is not primarily to protect the wearer, it is to protect the community. Governments have a duty to protect the community. For example, the nasty big government which you fear already imposes compulsory safety standards and features on automobiles and aircraft, and I don't see them being accused of fascism for that. Government imposes safety standards on food and medicines, on how many people are safely allowed in a restaurant or theatre, on how dangerous materials can be transported, on building codes, on fire safety codes (and we saw recently in the Grenfell Towers tragedy in London what can happen when those codes are ignored) and on many other aspects of daily life, in order to protect the community. Indeed government imposes poice forces supposedly to protect the community. Why should protecting the community via masks cause these sudden accusations of fascism?
52proximity1
>33 Cubby.R.S.:
... "your half-murdered conscience would be overwhelmed."...
I'm "borrowing" that—a wonderful turn of phrase.
It's positively "Shakespearean"—trust me, I study Shakespeare. If he didn't write that, he ought to have*.
__________________________
* This clever phrase doesn't appear anywhere in "Shakespeare"'s writings.
... "your half-murdered conscience would be overwhelmed."...
I'm "borrowing" that—a wonderful turn of phrase.
It's positively "Shakespearean"—trust me, I study Shakespeare. If he didn't write that, he ought to have*.
__________________________
* This clever phrase doesn't appear anywhere in "Shakespeare"'s writings.
53Cubby.R.S.
1. Said nobody, ever. I honestly think this propaganda you believe is more dangerous than I thought.
2. Ditto
3. Well I gave you a lib friendly link, but the extra work takes a significant amount of time if you're waiting on a review... This was a much more targeted approach than that article suggests. There were a significant number of groups that could not mobilize for the campaign. https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/irs-settling-claims-with-tea-party-groups-o...
4. If making gas engines illegal for zero emissions is part of the plan, I say that's quite hampering. You obviously live in a bubble and have little curiosity about the world outside.
5. Scientists are cancelled for dissent now.
This is how it all starts. Just because you like the forced direction now, doesn't mean it's going to stay that way. Eventually you won't like what the government forces you to do.
2. Ditto
3. Well I gave you a lib friendly link, but the extra work takes a significant amount of time if you're waiting on a review... This was a much more targeted approach than that article suggests. There were a significant number of groups that could not mobilize for the campaign. https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/irs-settling-claims-with-tea-party-groups-o...
4. If making gas engines illegal for zero emissions is part of the plan, I say that's quite hampering. You obviously live in a bubble and have little curiosity about the world outside.
5. Scientists are cancelled for dissent now.
This is how it all starts. Just because you like the forced direction now, doesn't mean it's going to stay that way. Eventually you won't like what the government forces you to do.
54John5918
>53 Cubby.R.S.: If making gas engines illegal for zero emissions is part of the plan, I say that's quite hampering
It's on the cards in UK (even under a right wing government) and many other countries, aiming I think for around a 2040 cut-off date if not earlier. They obviously don't believe it's "hampering". But even if it were "hampering", it's not fascism. Indeed one of the things for which fascism is famous is the development of a car which was powered by fossil fuel, namely the Volkswagen Beetle (or Bug as I believe it is known as on your side of the Pond).
Scientists are cancelled for dissent now
What do you mean by "cancelled"? Dismissed, silenced, killed, ostracised? As far as I am aware scientists are not "cancelled", although as has always been the case their work is unlikely to be taken seriously unless peer-reviewed. Peer review is not fascism. Even if they can't publish in a reputable scientific journal due to the disapproval of the peer reviewers, there are any number of avenues where they can publish their work online, and indeed some are doing so on social media, conspiracy theory websites and other right wing media.
It's on the cards in UK (even under a right wing government) and many other countries, aiming I think for around a 2040 cut-off date if not earlier. They obviously don't believe it's "hampering". But even if it were "hampering", it's not fascism. Indeed one of the things for which fascism is famous is the development of a car which was powered by fossil fuel, namely the Volkswagen Beetle (or Bug as I believe it is known as on your side of the Pond).
Scientists are cancelled for dissent now
What do you mean by "cancelled"? Dismissed, silenced, killed, ostracised? As far as I am aware scientists are not "cancelled", although as has always been the case their work is unlikely to be taken seriously unless peer-reviewed. Peer review is not fascism. Even if they can't publish in a reputable scientific journal due to the disapproval of the peer reviewers, there are any number of avenues where they can publish their work online, and indeed some are doing so on social media, conspiracy theory websites and other right wing media.
55kiparsky
>53 Cubby.R.S.: This is how it all starts
If you're not going to even try, this isn't going to be a lot of fun for either of us. You're trying to use a slippery-slope argument when you're standing on level ground.
Please try to actually respond if you can. If all you've got is "I don't like Biden's policies", then just say so and we'll all know that in Cubby-speak, "fascist" is shorthand for "something I don't care for".
If you're not going to even try, this isn't going to be a lot of fun for either of us. You're trying to use a slippery-slope argument when you're standing on level ground.
Please try to actually respond if you can. If all you've got is "I don't like Biden's policies", then just say so and we'll all know that in Cubby-speak, "fascist" is shorthand for "something I don't care for".
56prosfilaes
>53 Cubby.R.S.: 4. If making gas engines illegal for zero emissions is part of the plan, I say that's quite hampering.
We already have clear air requirements on gas engines. Leaded gas has been illegal for quite some time. What's the limits? Carbon dioxide emissions are believed to be causing changes to the Earth's climate that will be deadly and massively expensive. How is it fascism to ban something that kills people and causes severe economic damages to third parties?
5. Scientists are cancelled for dissent now.
Scientists are "cancelled" for for lazy, biased work. It is the essence of any fact based study that false statements have to be rejected for the field of study to advance, and it is an unfortunate fact of reality that the first level of filter is going to be on people, because Joe Shmoe rarely has the skills to produce important work, especially when he's proposing a solution to Riemann's Hypothesis or the like, and John Cheater simply can't be trusted to produce honest work.
We already have clear air requirements on gas engines. Leaded gas has been illegal for quite some time. What's the limits? Carbon dioxide emissions are believed to be causing changes to the Earth's climate that will be deadly and massively expensive. How is it fascism to ban something that kills people and causes severe economic damages to third parties?
5. Scientists are cancelled for dissent now.
Scientists are "cancelled" for for lazy, biased work. It is the essence of any fact based study that false statements have to be rejected for the field of study to advance, and it is an unfortunate fact of reality that the first level of filter is going to be on people, because Joe Shmoe rarely has the skills to produce important work, especially when he's proposing a solution to Riemann's Hypothesis or the like, and John Cheater simply can't be trusted to produce honest work.
57Cubby.R.S.
>55 kiparsky:
Said every folk-tale antagonist, ever.
>54 John5918:
>55 kiparsky:
>56 prosfilaes:
What makes you think that the lazy scientists are not the consensus? Flat-earth much? Whether you believe in global-warming or not, it's awfully strange to so vehemently dismiss scientists.
https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/400467/original/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.p...
--Once in a while environmentalists reveal their true agenda. Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
https://triblive.com/opinion/walter-williams-on-climate-are-scientists-dishonest...
https://sensiblesafeguards.org/climate-scientists-confront-a-culture-of-fear-and...
>56 prosfilaes:
Since you seem to think it's okay to steal people's freedom, money, and cost them money for transportation, or a combination of all of those; then you probably don't really care about poverty vs. crime, and the potential impacts that it will have on the destitute. For those things that will save lives, we shall do anything! Perhaps we can search through Riddley Walker for some ideas, eat the unborn rather than dice them up for parts.
Great world builders! Maybe we can store dead bodies in our battery tombs to save some space in the ground.
Said every folk-tale antagonist, ever.
>54 John5918:
>55 kiparsky:
>56 prosfilaes:
What makes you think that the lazy scientists are not the consensus? Flat-earth much? Whether you believe in global-warming or not, it's awfully strange to so vehemently dismiss scientists.
https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/400467/original/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.p...
--Once in a while environmentalists reveal their true agenda. Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
https://triblive.com/opinion/walter-williams-on-climate-are-scientists-dishonest...
https://sensiblesafeguards.org/climate-scientists-confront-a-culture-of-fear-and...
>56 prosfilaes:
Since you seem to think it's okay to steal people's freedom, money, and cost them money for transportation, or a combination of all of those; then you probably don't really care about poverty vs. crime, and the potential impacts that it will have on the destitute. For those things that will save lives, we shall do anything! Perhaps we can search through Riddley Walker for some ideas, eat the unborn rather than dice them up for parts.
Great world builders! Maybe we can store dead bodies in our battery tombs to save some space in the ground.
58kiparsky
Sigh. I guess we're not going to get anything coherent out of this.
Cubby, you're never going to convince people unless you give them sensible arguments.
What makes you think that the lazy scientists are not the consensus?
I'm not sure what lazy has to do with anything, but the consensus is accepted because it has been shown to have predictive value, it is not in conflict with existing understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc, and the people who have tried to find errors in it have failed to show those errors.
The nice thing about science as a method is that if it's wrong, you can show that it's wrong. That's sort of the point of the whole business. And the people who have spent the last forty years or so trying to show that global warming is not happening, or is not anthropogenic, or is a glitch in larger global climate cycles, have not been able to do so. In science, that's called a well-tested hypothesis, and it's the most convincing evidence we can get of anything. There are almost no medicines, for example, which have undergone this sort of testing - aspirin, maybe, and maybe classic penicillin would be some that come to mind - but you are probably wiling to take those medicines on much weaker evidence than we have for the fact of global warming.
Maybe you think that all of the people who believed that global warming is not real or not anthropogenic were incompetent and that's why they've failed to make their case over the last forty years... but if you believe that, why do you cling to their hypothesis?
Cubby, you're never going to convince people unless you give them sensible arguments.
What makes you think that the lazy scientists are not the consensus?
I'm not sure what lazy has to do with anything, but the consensus is accepted because it has been shown to have predictive value, it is not in conflict with existing understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc, and the people who have tried to find errors in it have failed to show those errors.
The nice thing about science as a method is that if it's wrong, you can show that it's wrong. That's sort of the point of the whole business. And the people who have spent the last forty years or so trying to show that global warming is not happening, or is not anthropogenic, or is a glitch in larger global climate cycles, have not been able to do so. In science, that's called a well-tested hypothesis, and it's the most convincing evidence we can get of anything. There are almost no medicines, for example, which have undergone this sort of testing - aspirin, maybe, and maybe classic penicillin would be some that come to mind - but you are probably wiling to take those medicines on much weaker evidence than we have for the fact of global warming.
Maybe you think that all of the people who believed that global warming is not real or not anthropogenic were incompetent and that's why they've failed to make their case over the last forty years... but if you believe that, why do you cling to their hypothesis?
59Cubby.R.S.
>58 kiparsky:
I would encourage you to read the links in >56 prosfilaes:.
I don't think you read any links I provide. Would you prefer that I paste articles in a thread? I feel like you accuse me of dodging discussion or being idiotic, because you are afraid to click links.
I would encourage you to read the links in >56 prosfilaes:.
I don't think you read any links I provide. Would you prefer that I paste articles in a thread? I feel like you accuse me of dodging discussion or being idiotic, because you are afraid to click links.
60kiparsky
I read the links. Neither of them was worth reading, but I read them.
One asks a leading question, to which the answer is "no". And that's the end of that one.
The other is almost content-free. It's apparent that the author is against censorship, but they never actually say who they think is being censored, or by whom, or for what reason, so it's not clear why they're bothering to write it. It certainly doesn't help you make your case that global warming is either not real or not anthropogenic.
I don't know why you keep citing op-eds as if they had some evidentiary value, but in general op-eds are not convincing except to those already convinced.
What would be more helpful would be if you were to make an argument, but you seem resistant to that idea. Try it some time: lay out your case for yourself, in your own words. Do it explicitly, without relying on fragmentary implications. Tell me what you believe and why you think I ought to believe it. You might not convince me, but at least you'll understand what you think a lot better than you do now.
One asks a leading question, to which the answer is "no". And that's the end of that one.
The other is almost content-free. It's apparent that the author is against censorship, but they never actually say who they think is being censored, or by whom, or for what reason, so it's not clear why they're bothering to write it. It certainly doesn't help you make your case that global warming is either not real or not anthropogenic.
I don't know why you keep citing op-eds as if they had some evidentiary value, but in general op-eds are not convincing except to those already convinced.
What would be more helpful would be if you were to make an argument, but you seem resistant to that idea. Try it some time: lay out your case for yourself, in your own words. Do it explicitly, without relying on fragmentary implications. Tell me what you believe and why you think I ought to believe it. You might not convince me, but at least you'll understand what you think a lot better than you do now.
61prosfilaes
>57 Cubby.R.S.: Whether you believe in global-warming or not, it's awfully strange to so vehemently dismiss scientists.
*Scratches head.* As a whole, scientists have declared that anthropogenic climate change is real. How is it dismissing scientists to agree with that conclusion?
For those things that will save lives, we shall do anything!
I asked you a question: "what's the limits?" This is a very real, very challenging question, and there's a lot of fine details to discuss. Do you believe that there should be no limits? Even if you do, that's an incredibly extreme position and one practiced by few governments in the twentieth or twenty-first century.
*Scratches head.* As a whole, scientists have declared that anthropogenic climate change is real. How is it dismissing scientists to agree with that conclusion?
For those things that will save lives, we shall do anything!
I asked you a question: "what's the limits?" This is a very real, very challenging question, and there's a lot of fine details to discuss. Do you believe that there should be no limits? Even if you do, that's an incredibly extreme position and one practiced by few governments in the twentieth or twenty-first century.
62John5918
>57 Cubby.R.S.: For those things that will save lives, we shall do anything!
Does "do anything" include taking the overwhelming scientific consensus about the climate crisis seriously? Does it include serious investigation of systemic issues within the police force (without prejudging the result of the investigation)? Does it include treating "illegal" migrants as human beings? Does it include taking COVID-19 precautions seriously?
Does "do anything" include taking the overwhelming scientific consensus about the climate crisis seriously? Does it include serious investigation of systemic issues within the police force (without prejudging the result of the investigation)? Does it include treating "illegal" migrants as human beings? Does it include taking COVID-19 precautions seriously?
63Cubby.R.S.
>62 John5918:
If it was a real solution that was actual science and not political silence, I think there could be a discussion worth having.
If it was a real solution that was actual science and not political silence, I think there could be a discussion worth having.
64John5918
>62 John5918:
Actual science? That's what I'm talking about, actual science as opposed to political campaigning and conspiracy theories.
Actual science? That's what I'm talking about, actual science as opposed to political campaigning and conspiracy theories.
65Cubby.R.S.
>64 John5918:
Okay, did Bigfoot tell you that, while standing on the edge of Earth? You are being duped. It's a shame too, because despite your support of nothing while defending nothing and agreeing with whatever you're sources tell you and your condescending conversational approach, I think you probably are an alright guy.
Okay, did Bigfoot tell you that, while standing on the edge of Earth? You are being duped. It's a shame too, because despite your support of nothing while defending nothing and agreeing with whatever you're sources tell you and your condescending conversational approach, I think you probably are an alright guy.
66John5918
>65 Cubby.R.S.:
Well, I have a degree in science, I used to teach science at high school level, I know something of the scientific method, I've read quite widely around environmental issues, I live on a continent which was visibly being affected by climate change long before it was noticed by the western media... no, I'm not being duped.
Well, I have a degree in science, I used to teach science at high school level, I know something of the scientific method, I've read quite widely around environmental issues, I live on a continent which was visibly being affected by climate change long before it was noticed by the western media... no, I'm not being duped.
67Cubby.R.S.
>66 John5918:
Climate Change is real, to be sure. But that has been true since the beginning of time. I'm sure science at least taught you that. So, no piece of paper extracting taxes is going to change that.
Climate Change is real, to be sure. But that has been true since the beginning of time. I'm sure science at least taught you that. So, no piece of paper extracting taxes is going to change that.
68John5918
>66 John5918:
Taxes are extracted whether or not there is climate change. The question is not whether taxes should be extracted, but what they should be spent on.
Taxes are extracted whether or not there is climate change. The question is not whether taxes should be extracted, but what they should be spent on.
69Cubby.R.S.
>68 John5918:
No additional taxes extracted for the purpose of combating climate change is going to change the existence of climate change.
No additional taxes extracted for the purpose of combating climate change is going to change the existence of climate change.
70kiparsky
>63 Cubby.R.S.: Olay, I'll bite. What would constitute a "real solution" that was "actual science" in your book?
I mean, I generally go to actual scientists for my actual science, but I'm curious to hear your proposals.
I mean, I generally go to actual scientists for my actual science, but I'm curious to hear your proposals.
71John5918
>69 Cubby.R.S.:
Well, that's not the scientific consensus. There is a lot that can be done to slow down and ameliorate the human impact on climate change, although it's true that time is running out and if something isn't done soon it will be too late. Reducing the use of fossil fuels is one obvious measure, and many countries are beginning to do so, in some cases not for scientific but for economic reasons. Think of all the profitable opportunities for capitalist corporations if green energy really becomes mainstream. And it doesn't necessarily mean additional taxation. If expenditure on the military were reduced, for example, there'd be a lot more tax revenue available for more useful things.
Well, that's not the scientific consensus. There is a lot that can be done to slow down and ameliorate the human impact on climate change, although it's true that time is running out and if something isn't done soon it will be too late. Reducing the use of fossil fuels is one obvious measure, and many countries are beginning to do so, in some cases not for scientific but for economic reasons. Think of all the profitable opportunities for capitalist corporations if green energy really becomes mainstream. And it doesn't necessarily mean additional taxation. If expenditure on the military were reduced, for example, there'd be a lot more tax revenue available for more useful things.
72Cubby.R.S.
There is no solution for climate change, it has to occur. The Earth needs climate change in order to heal the wounds it sustains from life. Considering livestock is on the docket according to alarmists, we couldn't even remove manufacturing from the face of the earth and survive. There is no real intent on solving it, only a restructuring of the world's wealth. In which case, I'm only concerned that manufacturing will die, because electricity cannot produce the power that fossil fuels can. Violence and chaos from growing poverty will be overwhelming. Restrictions on showers and light usage will be worldwide, and all for what? Climate Change will still occur.
Wood burning is worse than gas burning. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26112019/wood-burning-climate-health-conseque....
What happens to the storage of chemicals necessary for this transition, batteries, etc.?
I see zero benefits of the Green New Deal. The jobs will be tax earnings, from citizens, who will no longer have jobs and businesses that will no longer exist. It's not a magic wand for capitalism, but a destruction of it, bringing in the worst kinds of Socialism.
My answer, a worldwide consensus to adopt Christianity. Not the fake kind that exists in supporters of abortion or defected Catholics, but actual Christianity.... Muhahahahahaha.
Wood burning is worse than gas burning. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26112019/wood-burning-climate-health-conseque....
What happens to the storage of chemicals necessary for this transition, batteries, etc.?
I see zero benefits of the Green New Deal. The jobs will be tax earnings, from citizens, who will no longer have jobs and businesses that will no longer exist. It's not a magic wand for capitalism, but a destruction of it, bringing in the worst kinds of Socialism.
My answer, a worldwide consensus to adopt Christianity. Not the fake kind that exists in supporters of abortion or defected Catholics, but actual Christianity.... Muhahahahahaha.
73John5918
>72 Cubby.R.S.: I see zero benefits of the Green New Deal. The jobs will be tax earnings, from citizens, who will no longer have jobs and businesses that will no longer exist. It's not a magic wand for capitalism, but a destruction of it, bringing in the worst kinds of Socialism.
Good that you preface it with "I see". That's your opinion, that's what you see. I see that what you see is absolute nonsense, but then my worldview is different from yours.
Good that you preface it with "I see". That's your opinion, that's what you see. I see that what you see is absolute nonsense, but then my worldview is different from yours.
74kiparsky
>67 Cubby.R.S.: Climate Change is real, to be sure. But that has been true since the beginning of time
It is certainly true that the earth's climate has been changing throughout the time the planet has existed. However, as you well know, the term "climate change" is used as shorthand for "anthropogenic global climate change". Please don't try to confuse the issue: we're talking about man-made climate change as a result of the irresponsible generation of greenhouse gases such as C02 and methane, etc.
>69 Cubby.R.S.: No additional taxes extracted for the purpose of combating climate change is going to change the existence of climate change.
If you mean climate changes on the scale of the lifespan of the planet, that is true enough. When Yellowstone blows up, the global climate will be changed and that will not be affected by any economic activity that we can plan or control.
However, we're talking about the currently ongoing anthropogenic global climate change, and trying to change the subject is not helpful.
Tax policy is, as you well know, a standard tool by which we change people's behavior. Since the climate change that we're talking about is the result of human behavior, tax policy is a sensible tool to consider in ameliorating that problem - preferably before it ameliorates us.
It is certainly true that the earth's climate has been changing throughout the time the planet has existed. However, as you well know, the term "climate change" is used as shorthand for "anthropogenic global climate change". Please don't try to confuse the issue: we're talking about man-made climate change as a result of the irresponsible generation of greenhouse gases such as C02 and methane, etc.
>69 Cubby.R.S.: No additional taxes extracted for the purpose of combating climate change is going to change the existence of climate change.
If you mean climate changes on the scale of the lifespan of the planet, that is true enough. When Yellowstone blows up, the global climate will be changed and that will not be affected by any economic activity that we can plan or control.
However, we're talking about the currently ongoing anthropogenic global climate change, and trying to change the subject is not helpful.
Tax policy is, as you well know, a standard tool by which we change people's behavior. Since the climate change that we're talking about is the result of human behavior, tax policy is a sensible tool to consider in ameliorating that problem - preferably before it ameliorates us.
75prosfilaes
>67 Cubby.R.S.: Climate Change is real, to be sure. But that has been true since the beginning of time.
For the last 9000 years, we've stayed within 1 C of the 1961-1990 average; https://xkcd.com/1732/ shows this graphically. We're talking over less than a century going 2 C above that if we make huge changes; if we merely follow Biden's plan, we'll get more than that, and if we follow current patterns, we're looking at over 4 C.
For the last 9000 years, we've stayed within 1 C of the 1961-1990 average; https://xkcd.com/1732/ shows this graphically. We're talking over less than a century going 2 C above that if we make huge changes; if we merely follow Biden's plan, we'll get more than that, and if we follow current patterns, we're looking at over 4 C.
76Cubby.R.S.
Nobody thinks the Green New Deal will actually work, or do anything. They say it's a stepping stone, kind of like electing Joe Biden to get Socialism, Communism, Death. There is no point in utilizing crappy technology and wasting trillions of dollars to invest in poor energy, when current technology should be invested in, prior to utlizing it to harness energy. That's saying the science, which is more than likely a joke, is actually in earnest about man-made influences on climate.
I am at best a skeptic:
Environmentalists and their political allies attribute the recent increase in deadly forest fires to global warming. However, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, forest fires reached their peak in the 1930s and have declined by 80% since then. Environmentalists make their case for the effects of global warming by showing the public and policymakers data from 1980 that shows an increase in forest fires.
Climate scientists claim that rising sea levels are caused by man-made global warming. Historical data from the tide gauge in Lower Manhattan shows that sea levels have been rising from about the time when Abraham Lincoln was president to now. Heller says that sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. He points out that anthropologists believe that when the sea level was very low people were able to walk from Siberia to North America.
Hot weather is often claimed to be a result of man-made climate change. Heller presents data showing the number of days in Waverly, Ohio, above 90 degrees. In 1895, there were 73 days above 90 degrees. In 1936, there were 82 days above 90 degrees. Since the 1930s, there has been a downward trend in the number of days above 90 degrees. If climatologists hide data from earlier years and started at 1955, they show an increase in the number of above 90-degree days from eight or nine to 30 or 40. Thus, to deceive us into thinking the climate is getting hotter, environmentalists have selected a starting date that fits their agenda.
From -- https://triblive.com/opinion/walter-williams-on-climate-are-scientists-dishonest....
I am at best a skeptic:
Environmentalists and their political allies attribute the recent increase in deadly forest fires to global warming. However, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, forest fires reached their peak in the 1930s and have declined by 80% since then. Environmentalists make their case for the effects of global warming by showing the public and policymakers data from 1980 that shows an increase in forest fires.
Climate scientists claim that rising sea levels are caused by man-made global warming. Historical data from the tide gauge in Lower Manhattan shows that sea levels have been rising from about the time when Abraham Lincoln was president to now. Heller says that sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. He points out that anthropologists believe that when the sea level was very low people were able to walk from Siberia to North America.
Hot weather is often claimed to be a result of man-made climate change. Heller presents data showing the number of days in Waverly, Ohio, above 90 degrees. In 1895, there were 73 days above 90 degrees. In 1936, there were 82 days above 90 degrees. Since the 1930s, there has been a downward trend in the number of days above 90 degrees. If climatologists hide data from earlier years and started at 1955, they show an increase in the number of above 90-degree days from eight or nine to 30 or 40. Thus, to deceive us into thinking the climate is getting hotter, environmentalists have selected a starting date that fits their agenda.
From -- https://triblive.com/opinion/walter-williams-on-climate-are-scientists-dishonest....
77Cubby.R.S.
More from the Senate Report:
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to
control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find
much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is
a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without
asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.‖ -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford
University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in
1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is
relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global
warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what „science‟
has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C.
Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled
―The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor
concentration in the troposphere‖ and he published a paper in August 2009 titled
―Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.‖ Updated December 9,
2010
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal.
Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done
within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has
actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with
the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the
Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. Updated December 9,
2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.
“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These
cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the
problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we
are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” --
Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of
Sciences
“We‟re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media,
there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because
there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another
150 years.” -- UN IPCC‘s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed
as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services &
Development for U.S. Magnesium.
..."As new data and science continued to call into question man-made global warming
claims, one of the movements leading fear promoters shocked the world by beginning to
retreat from his dire predictions. Green guru James Lovelock warned in 2007 that,
"Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people
that survive will be in the Arctic." Lovelock illustrates how the climate of the climate
change movement has been transformed in the last year. In May 2010, Lovelock shocked
the world by announcing: "Everybody might be wrong. Climate change may not happen
as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out." Lovelock went even
father by noting how the science of global warming is in its infancy and "we haven't got
the physics worked out yet." "The great climate science centers around the world are
more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they‘re
scared stiff of the fact that they don‘t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are
doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven‘t got the physics worked
out yet," Lovelock explained. Lovelock now openly praises skeptics and worries that
climate fear promotion is akin to religion. In March of 2010, Lovelock said: "The
skeptics have kept us sane...They have kept us from regarding climate science as a
religion. It had gone too far that way." Note: Lovelock is not included in the count of
dissenting scientists in this report...."
From -- https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/400467/original/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.p...
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to
control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find
much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is
a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without
asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.‖ -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford
University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in
1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is
relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global
warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what „science‟
has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C.
Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled
―The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor
concentration in the troposphere‖ and he published a paper in August 2009 titled
―Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.‖ Updated December 9,
2010
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal.
Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done
within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has
actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with
the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the
Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. Updated December 9,
2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.
“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These
cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the
problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we
are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” --
Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of
Sciences
“We‟re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media,
there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because
there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another
150 years.” -- UN IPCC‘s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed
as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services &
Development for U.S. Magnesium.
..."As new data and science continued to call into question man-made global warming
claims, one of the movements leading fear promoters shocked the world by beginning to
retreat from his dire predictions. Green guru James Lovelock warned in 2007 that,
"Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people
that survive will be in the Arctic." Lovelock illustrates how the climate of the climate
change movement has been transformed in the last year. In May 2010, Lovelock shocked
the world by announcing: "Everybody might be wrong. Climate change may not happen
as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out." Lovelock went even
father by noting how the science of global warming is in its infancy and "we haven't got
the physics worked out yet." "The great climate science centers around the world are
more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they‘re
scared stiff of the fact that they don‘t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are
doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven‘t got the physics worked
out yet," Lovelock explained. Lovelock now openly praises skeptics and worries that
climate fear promotion is akin to religion. In March of 2010, Lovelock said: "The
skeptics have kept us sane...They have kept us from regarding climate science as a
religion. It had gone too far that way." Note: Lovelock is not included in the count of
dissenting scientists in this report...."
From -- https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/400467/original/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.p...
78kiparsky
>76 Cubby.R.S.: Hot weather is often claimed to be a result of man-made climate change
The first thing you need to understand if you want to be taken seriously in talking about climate change is that there is a distinction between climate and weather.
The fact that "hottest year on record" is becoming an annual event is a fact about climate.
The fact that we had a hot summer here in Boston is a fact about weather.
I am at best a skeptic
You give yourself too much credit. "Skeptic" does not mean uncritically accepting the ideas that you would prefer to be true and making baseless attacks on established facts that you find ideologically unpalatable.
The first thing you need to understand if you want to be taken seriously in talking about climate change is that there is a distinction between climate and weather.
The fact that "hottest year on record" is becoming an annual event is a fact about climate.
The fact that we had a hot summer here in Boston is a fact about weather.
I am at best a skeptic
You give yourself too much credit. "Skeptic" does not mean uncritically accepting the ideas that you would prefer to be true and making baseless attacks on established facts that you find ideologically unpalatable.
80kiparsky
As I said, I've already read your op-ed, and it's pretty worthless. I do not intend to engage in an argument by proxy with your favorite talking head. If you have something to say, say it. If you're just going to dump other people's garbage, don't expect anyone to waste their time responding to someone who isn't on the thread.
81prosfilaes
>76 Cubby.R.S.: Triblive.com seems to lack an interest in web standards and won't load on Google Chrome. I have no interest in fighting with it.
You keep repeating 1930s; guess what, that was an abnormally hot decade for the US. Heller presents data showing the number of days in Waverly, Ohio, above 90 degrees. Ever heard of cherry-picking data? Looking at one city is hardly enough, but Waverly, Ohio? And "the number of days above 90 degrees"? That's an incredibly arbitrary value. I'm not sure that a simple average is perfect, but it's better than "the number of days above X degrees".
If climatologists hide data from earlier years and started at 1955
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/21/why-does-the-temperature-record-shown-on-your-vi...
Heller says that sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. He points out that anthropologists believe that when the sea level was very low people were able to walk from Siberia to North America.
Did you look at https://xkcd.com/1732/ ? Yes, it was 4 degrees C colder 20,000 years ago. Then it got warm and the glaciers covering Boston and Edinburgh melted. No one argues that the world's temperature has risen immensely since 20,000 years ago, but it stabilized a little over 10,000 years ago.
Thus, to deceive us into thinking the climate is getting hotter, environmentalists have selected a starting date that fits their agenda.
>57 Cubby.R.S.: Whether you believe in global-warming or not, it's awfully strange to so vehemently dismiss scientists.
Okay, so you say that climate scientists are lying to us. You've lost me. If you dismiss enough people, you can establish Flat Earth or no Moon Landings or Bacon is Shakespeare. But most people don't lie like that. There's certainly people who lie regularly, and a lot of people who spout bullshit, but even most of the latter believe what they're saying. Scientists sometimes become liars for money, but even branches of science that have gone quite wrong tend to be filled with true believers.
You keep repeating 1930s; guess what, that was an abnormally hot decade for the US. Heller presents data showing the number of days in Waverly, Ohio, above 90 degrees. Ever heard of cherry-picking data? Looking at one city is hardly enough, but Waverly, Ohio? And "the number of days above 90 degrees"? That's an incredibly arbitrary value. I'm not sure that a simple average is perfect, but it's better than "the number of days above X degrees".
If climatologists hide data from earlier years and started at 1955
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/21/why-does-the-temperature-record-shown-on-your-vi...
Heller says that sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. He points out that anthropologists believe that when the sea level was very low people were able to walk from Siberia to North America.
Did you look at https://xkcd.com/1732/ ? Yes, it was 4 degrees C colder 20,000 years ago. Then it got warm and the glaciers covering Boston and Edinburgh melted. No one argues that the world's temperature has risen immensely since 20,000 years ago, but it stabilized a little over 10,000 years ago.
Thus, to deceive us into thinking the climate is getting hotter, environmentalists have selected a starting date that fits their agenda.
>57 Cubby.R.S.: Whether you believe in global-warming or not, it's awfully strange to so vehemently dismiss scientists.
Okay, so you say that climate scientists are lying to us. You've lost me. If you dismiss enough people, you can establish Flat Earth or no Moon Landings or Bacon is Shakespeare. But most people don't lie like that. There's certainly people who lie regularly, and a lot of people who spout bullshit, but even most of the latter believe what they're saying. Scientists sometimes become liars for money, but even branches of science that have gone quite wrong tend to be filled with true believers.
82Cubby.R.S.
>81 prosfilaes:
Projected evidence and modeling that supports constant warming is not evidence for man made warming. Documentation suggests that we don't know enough to prove that man made climate change exists, but what we can prove is that there is not enough technology to support our energy needs and the legislation will cost far more than its impact will actually improve.
It would be better to improve the technology than it would be to force the use of inadequate energy sources.
If you actually believe that Climate Change science isn't corrupted with all the money involved, you're fooling yourself.
Projected evidence and modeling that supports constant warming is not evidence for man made warming. Documentation suggests that we don't know enough to prove that man made climate change exists, but what we can prove is that there is not enough technology to support our energy needs and the legislation will cost far more than its impact will actually improve.
It would be better to improve the technology than it would be to force the use of inadequate energy sources.
If you actually believe that Climate Change science isn't corrupted with all the money involved, you're fooling yourself.
83aspirit
>30 Cubby.R.S.: "Trump and the Constitution: a year in review and our coverage" by Constitution Daily addressed issues in the first year of what's been a long slide away from both the letter and intent of laws:
--Foreign or Domestic Emoluments Clauses
--Trump’s Executive Orders on immigration
--Dismantling the administrative state
--Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation
--The Twenty-Fifth Amendment
--The scope of the pardon power
--Trump’s use of Twitter and the First Amendment
Everything that's happened within the pandemic is so difficult to track that the public isn't demanding new impeachment trials every day. (There used to be a website for a weekly list tracking the descen into fascism, but disturbingly, I can no find the site or mention of it in searches. I tried a different tactic with searching....) Amy Siskind tries to keep up The Weekly List ("This is How Democracy Ends": with an unchecked fascist president), but that's overwhelming just to skimread.
Anyway, what has been apparent by the mishandling of public health administration has repeatedly shown we have a POTUS unfit to serve. (Isn't that in the Constitution? Is it the 12th Amendment?)
Some of the many ongoing issues are about voting rights and term restrictions: The U.S. Is Facing the Possibility of a Truly Illegitimate Election (by David Litt, The Atlantic), a concern because "Trump admits he's refusing to fund the US Postal Service to sabotage mail-in voting" and "What Trump has said about delaying the election or not accepting its results" (showing how little he understands the Constitution), among all the other microaggressions against the USA by its official leader.
There's the Trump/Putin relationship that keep sliding away from press attention despite new incidents and the ever-frequent golf course retreats with their security problems. Somehow, the 14th Amendement isn't all over the news this season.
So, yes, I understand the feelings of despair for our nation. Those have been constant for roughly four years.
===
On-topic--
Here we are. Online, away from my GOP-loving neighbors, I'm not too afraid to talk about politics.
That said, I should go see what needs to be said about my murderous governor and pandemic-profiteering senators are trying to get away with this week.
--Foreign or Domestic Emoluments Clauses
--Trump’s Executive Orders on immigration
--Dismantling the administrative state
--Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation
--The Twenty-Fifth Amendment
--The scope of the pardon power
--Trump’s use of Twitter and the First Amendment
Everything that's happened within the pandemic is so difficult to track that the public isn't demanding new impeachment trials every day. (
Anyway, what has been apparent by the mishandling of public health administration has repeatedly shown we have a POTUS unfit to serve. (Isn't that in the Constitution? Is it the 12th Amendment?)
Some of the many ongoing issues are about voting rights and term restrictions: The U.S. Is Facing the Possibility of a Truly Illegitimate Election (by David Litt, The Atlantic), a concern because "Trump admits he's refusing to fund the US Postal Service to sabotage mail-in voting" and "What Trump has said about delaying the election or not accepting its results" (showing how little he understands the Constitution), among all the other microaggressions against the USA by its official leader.
There's the Trump/Putin relationship that keep sliding away from press attention despite new incidents and the ever-frequent golf course retreats with their security problems. Somehow, the 14th Amendement isn't all over the news this season.
So, yes, I understand the feelings of despair for our nation. Those have been constant for roughly four years.
===
On-topic--
Here we are. Online, away from my GOP-loving neighbors, I'm not too afraid to talk about politics.
That said, I should go see what needs to be said about my murderous governor and pandemic-profiteering senators are trying to get away with this week.
84kiparsky
>82 Cubby.R.S.: If you actually believe that Climate Change science isn't corrupted with all the money involved, you're fooling yourself.
Interesting idea. I'd love to have you develop it a little. What would you say is the financial motivation that drives the money that you think is corrupting climate change research? I won't ask you who's putting in the money, because I don't want to embarrass you and make you say all sorts of nonsense (...yet) but whoever it might be, what do you suppose their motivation is? Putting it crassly, how do they make money off this?
Interesting idea. I'd love to have you develop it a little. What would you say is the financial motivation that drives the money that you think is corrupting climate change research? I won't ask you who's putting in the money, because I don't want to embarrass you and make you say all sorts of nonsense (...yet) but whoever it might be, what do you suppose their motivation is? Putting it crassly, how do they make money off this?
85aspirit
Y'all know LibraryThing has a shit ton of threads on the global climate crisis, don't you?
86John5918
>82 Cubby.R.S.: It would be better to improve the technology
Does it have to be either/or? In the fact the technology is being improved daily both to increase the efficiency of renewable energy sources and storage, and to reduce the usage of fossil fuels in many of the areas where they have traditionally dominated (eg electricity generation, cars, railways, ships, aircraft, lighting, etc).
that Climate Change science isn't corrupted with all the money involved
Where's the profit for big business in telling the truth about climate change? Big business has consistently and often corruptly fought against the scientific consensus on climate change, just as it did over the medical view on smoking cigarettes, for example, or on the rights of indigenous people in areas where there is mining or timber. Yes, there's certainly corruption involved. Remember the Volkswagen scandal over fraudulent emissions data? Mind you, if only they could think outside the box, there's actually a lot of profit to be made by companies producing green technology. But the fossil fuel industry is so powerful that it doesn't want to see any of its profit transferred to these smaller start-up companies.
Edited to add: An example in today's news of the money that is being poured into climate change denial by big business in a very non-transparent manner: Literary figures join Extinction Rebellion campaign against thinktanks (Guardian)
an Extinction Rebellion campaign against the political influence of rightwing thinktanks fighting against climate action... thinktanks and lobbying outfits linked to climate science denial and the oil industry...
“It’s sickening how much money is being spent on thinktanks and professional lobbyists to spread confusion, lies and doubt on the subject of man-made climate change and its horribly real threat... These people and their huge corporations funding them are utilising exactly the same playbook that big tobacco used to sow doubt and confusion over the clear scientific evidence that emerged about smoking”...
“Bodies like {thinktank} the Institute of Economic Affairs won’t reveal their funders and yet are often given airtime to advocate for free market fundamentalism, as if it is a law of nature"...
Does it have to be either/or? In the fact the technology is being improved daily both to increase the efficiency of renewable energy sources and storage, and to reduce the usage of fossil fuels in many of the areas where they have traditionally dominated (eg electricity generation, cars, railways, ships, aircraft, lighting, etc).
that Climate Change science isn't corrupted with all the money involved
Where's the profit for big business in telling the truth about climate change? Big business has consistently and often corruptly fought against the scientific consensus on climate change, just as it did over the medical view on smoking cigarettes, for example, or on the rights of indigenous people in areas where there is mining or timber. Yes, there's certainly corruption involved. Remember the Volkswagen scandal over fraudulent emissions data? Mind you, if only they could think outside the box, there's actually a lot of profit to be made by companies producing green technology. But the fossil fuel industry is so powerful that it doesn't want to see any of its profit transferred to these smaller start-up companies.
Edited to add: An example in today's news of the money that is being poured into climate change denial by big business in a very non-transparent manner: Literary figures join Extinction Rebellion campaign against thinktanks (Guardian)
an Extinction Rebellion campaign against the political influence of rightwing thinktanks fighting against climate action... thinktanks and lobbying outfits linked to climate science denial and the oil industry...
“It’s sickening how much money is being spent on thinktanks and professional lobbyists to spread confusion, lies and doubt on the subject of man-made climate change and its horribly real threat... These people and their huge corporations funding them are utilising exactly the same playbook that big tobacco used to sow doubt and confusion over the clear scientific evidence that emerged about smoking”...
“Bodies like {thinktank} the Institute of Economic Affairs won’t reveal their funders and yet are often given airtime to advocate for free market fundamentalism, as if it is a law of nature"...
87prosfilaes
>82 Cubby.R.S.: Documentation suggests that we don't know enough to prove that man made climate change exists, but what we can prove is that there is not enough technology to support our energy needs and the legislation will cost far more than its impact will actually improve.
If we don't know enough to prove that man made climate change exists, we don't know enough to say what its impact is.
This is exactly the problem; you are skeptical about how much we know about the Earth's climate, but the incredibly more complex question about how much this (unclearly defined) legislation will cost, etc., all of which are tied into complex questions of future technology and future social patterns, you think can we can prove something about it.
If you actually believe that Climate Change science isn't corrupted with all the money involved, you're fooling yourself.
Ever heard of Big Veggie? Yes, Big Veggie is corrupted with all the money involved; veggie cleanses are expensive, unhealthy nonsense. That doesn't mean that you should ignore all this stuff about eating fewer Big Macs and more vegetables.
If we don't know enough to prove that man made climate change exists, we don't know enough to say what its impact is.
This is exactly the problem; you are skeptical about how much we know about the Earth's climate, but the incredibly more complex question about how much this (unclearly defined) legislation will cost, etc., all of which are tied into complex questions of future technology and future social patterns, you think can we can prove something about it.
If you actually believe that Climate Change science isn't corrupted with all the money involved, you're fooling yourself.
Ever heard of Big Veggie? Yes, Big Veggie is corrupted with all the money involved; veggie cleanses are expensive, unhealthy nonsense. That doesn't mean that you should ignore all this stuff about eating fewer Big Macs and more vegetables.
