• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In pictures: Drought Exposes Sunken Treasures

Not all wind farms are created equal apparently. Up north here, we have a great deal of trees (the things that "eat: CO2), many of which have to be removed for wind farms.

No one said we don't need water either.


The only state more north of where I live is Alaska. Canada is about 90 minutes north of me.

I never said people said we didn't need water.

We need water and what people are doing is destroying our source of water.

The people who denied climate change and made things worse, have been causing the destruction of our sources of water.

If people had listened to the scientists we wouldn't be in this situation now.

My state did listen and we did take steps and we are now benefiting from it.
 
The information is all out there. The responsibility to apprise oneself of it falls upon the individual.
If I was at all interested in it, you'd be correct. If, on the other hand, you are trying to get me to go along with you on this journey, I'd humbly suggest you try.
You and I are just terms to mean, those for climate change initiatives and those on the fence or against.

Capitalism to the rescue. Rent a road car for cross country trips.
Hassle, added expense, or just don't go is your answer? To me, that isn't a very good answer.
The government approach to a pandemic is better than leaving things up to individuals. Our government is merely the way our nation is organized. Logically a pandemic is a societal problem which requires a socially organized approach since it's scope is well beyond each individual.
Only if you have faith in the benevolent government. Not a lot of us do.
If our self-government is under performing the responsibility to address that falls upon each of us to take a larger role in becoming properly well informed and actively engaged in the business of our nation. Apathy and antipathy are the biggest impediment to having an effective self-government in a free nation.
I don't disagree. The problem arises when you have roughly half and half that have vividly different views and necessary functions of what the government is supposed to be doing for it's people.
 
There is no individual right to refuse mandatory vaccinations. Every State should have required every citizen to become vaccinated. That State right was upheld by the SCOTUS in 1905.

"On February 20, 1905, the Supreme Court, by a 7-2 majority, said in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts could fine residents who refused to receive smallpox injections. In 1901, a smallpox epidemic swept through the Northeast and Cambridge, and Massachusetts reacted by requiring all adults receive smallpox inoculations subject to a $5 fine. In 1902, Pastor Henning Jacobson, suggesting that he and his son both were injured by previous vaccines, refused to be vaccinated and to pay the fine. In state court, Jacobson argued the vaccine law violated the Massachusetts and federal constitutions. The state courts, including the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, rejected his claims. Before the Supreme Court, Jacobson argued that, “compulsion to introduce disease into a healthy system is a violation of liberty.”

When a separate question of vaccinations—state laws requiring children to be vaccinated before attending public school—came up in 1922 in Zucht v. King, Justice Louis Brandeis and a unanimous court held that Jacobson “settled that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination” and the case and others “also settled that a state may, consistently with the federal Constitution, delegate to a municipality authority to determine under what conditions health regulations shall become operative.” More recently, in 2002, a federal district court declined to find a exemption to mandatory vaccinations laws for “sincerely held religious beliefs” or a fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning medical procedures of their children."

Mandatory vaccinations are Constitutional
Whether or not vaccines can be mandated is not under question. Whether the mandated vaccine is a help or hindrance IS.
Poverty is not the fault of the poor who are born into it, and raised by parents who were unable to escape it nor teach how to do so. America has a system of repression that preserves cross-generational poverty. People raised to think they will never amount to anything tend to end up the way they were raised unless government social programs intercede.
STAYING in poverty IS. This country is RIFE with opportunities, but what it can't do is make the choices to put forth the effort to utilize them.
There has never been a case of a rich man taxed into poverty. That supposition is unfounded. Despite progressive taxation, wealth equality has continued to become more extreme.
Likely correct, they would just flee to a safer tax haven.
Most people have no idea of just how extreme wealth inequality has become. With over $430 trillion in wealth on planet Earth, conditions for the poor in America and the rest of the world are a disgrace. We can and should do much better. Greed and corruption stand in the way.
Income inequality matters not a single iota. Money is not a finite resource in today's world.
 
Whether or not vaccines can be mandated is not under question. Whether the mandated vaccine is a help or hindrance IS.

STAYING in poverty IS. This country is RIFE with opportunities, but what it can't do is make the choices to put forth the effort to utilize them.

Likely correct, they would just flee to a safer tax haven.

Income inequality matters not a single iota. Money is not a finite resource in today's world.
Blaming the poor for their own condition solves nothing and will not reduce poverty.
 
Wow. And yet despite all the science-based evidence, some people will continue to insist climate change is nothing but left-wing propaganda, while often times premising upon the fact climate change has been around ever since the Earth cooled. Thing is, most these deniers will be long dead before they can actually be proven wrong, which just adds to the greater consequence. A consequence I would hate to leave behind for future generations to follow.

A big reason is the destructive influence of the fossil fuel industry.



That decades of propaganda have eroded the trust in science and facts.

"But academics like David Michaels fear the use of uncertainty in the past to confuse the public and undermine science has contributed to a dangerous erosion of trust in facts and experts across the globe today, far beyond climate science or the dangers of tobacco.

He cites public attitudes to modern issues like the safety of 5G, vaccinations - and coronavirus.

"By cynically manipulating and distorting scientific evidence, the manufacturers of doubt have seeded in much of the public a cynicism about science, making it far more difficult to convince people that science provides useful - in some cases, vitally important - information.

"There is no question that this distrust of science and scientists is making it more difficult to stem the coronavirus pandemic."

It seems the legacy of "the tobacco playbook" lives on."


 
Not so sure about the comparison to covid with exception to such an event absolutely needed every nation on the planet to climb on board, even as some were hesitant or were unable to financially afford it. Which is sort of a reminder of the time Trump suggested that the Paris Agreement would only lead to a minuscule reduction in global temperature, when in fact even a reduction of 10-10ths of a degree can make a huge difference. Not only this, the accord was signed by all but two countries. Something of which I found pretty astonishing up until Trump took it upon himself to openly laugh about it on the floor of the UN General Assembly. An event I guess you could say was much similar to how he handled covid. Next up, would be to cut the crap surrounding 'carbon offsets', which appears to be next best excuse that large polluters such as BP, and even some famous rock bands, use as a methodology towards reducing carbon emissions, when it does nothing with regards to that effect.

Action on climate change can pay from itself simply through the positive health effects of reducing the toxic pollution from fossil fuels.


There investments into renewable energy have already lead to economy of scale and innovation that have reduced costs and lead to expansion of renewable energy all across the world. This compared to the trillions of dollars spent on intervention in the Middle East that have failed to both create democracy and stability in the region. So western countries is still dependent on and funding ruthless dictators for oil. With the result that you continue to have horrific wars and periods of spiking fossil fuel prices.



There a carbon tax on imports like the EU plan to implement can also be a way to make other countries do their part.

 
Not so sure about the comparison to covid with exception to such an event absolutely needed every nation on the planet to climb on board, even as some were hesitant or were unable to financially afford it. Which is sort of a reminder of the time Trump suggested that the Paris Agreement would only lead to a minuscule reduction in global temperature, when in fact even a reduction of 10-10ths of a degree can make a huge difference. Not only this, the accord was signed by all but two countries. Something of which I found pretty astonishing up until Trump took it upon himself to openly laugh about it on the floor of the UN General Assembly. An event I guess you could say was much similar to how he handled covid. Next up, would be to cut the crap surrounding 'carbon offsets', which appears to be next best excuse that large polluters such as BP, and even some famous rock bands, use as a methodology towards reducing carbon emissions, when it does nothing with regards to that effect.

China and India are bring dozens of power plants on line. All of which burn......wait for it.......coal.
 
Blaming the poor for their own condition solves nothing and will not reduce poverty.
Neither does subsidizing poverty. Someone once said, “The poor you will always have with you”.
 
China and India are bring dozens of power plants on line. All of which burn......wait for it.......coal.


We don't live in China and India. Please see my post #14.

My state proves that it doesn't matter what China and India do.

Stop with the excuses. It's garbage like that, that has caused what the world is going through now.

Be a part of the solution, not the problem.
 
We don't live in China and India.
Thank God for that.

The USA is the least polluting country in the world. This is because we have had such an effective economic system and standard of living that we can care about such things.

Those other countries that barely have indoor plumbing don't care too much about the environment.

Action on climate change can pay from itself simply through the positive health effects of reducing the toxic pollution from fossil fuels.
Except for the useless, costly regulations on the non-pollutant CO2.
 
Thank God for that.

The USA is the least polluting country in the world. This is because we have had such an effective economic system and standard of living that we can care about such things.

Those other countries that barely have indoor plumbing don't care too much about the environment.


Except for the useless, costly regulations on the non-pollutant CO2.

Why ?

I like China.

They are moving in our direction.

And if we follow the alarmists agenda, we'll be headed in theirs.
 
As I've been saying since the 80s. Trees clean our air and make more air for us to breathe. We wouldn't have air without trees and plants.

As I've been saying since the 90s, nothing on this planet can survive without water. Including us humans.

As scientists have been saying since the 90s, global warming climate change is real and now it's worldwide.

How can you say anything when you have evidence that this happened 400 years ago ?

Seriously ? Your article shoots all your arguments down.
 
We don't live in China and India. Please see my post #14.

My state proves that it doesn't matter what China and India do.

Stop with the excuses. It's garbage like that, that has caused what the world is going through now.

Be a part of the solution, not the problem.

In a very real sense we do.

We share the atmosphere with them.

What excuses ? I simply pointed out that your statement about "other nations" obviously doesn't include the two that account for over 1/3 of the worlds population.
 
I wouldn't call it treasures.

The "hunger stones" are ominous as far as I'm concerned.

It's happening all over the world. Just as the scientists said it would if we didn't do something. We didn't do anything beyond ignore the scientists and made the situation worse.

Climate change is real. Global warming is real. It has been real here in my state since the late 80s. The result of the clear cuts that left mountain after mountain as far as you could see bald and devoid of any life.

As I've been saying since the 80s. Trees clean our air and make more air for us to breathe. We wouldn't have air without trees and plants.

As I've been saying since the 90s, nothing on this planet can survive without water. Including us humans.

As scientists have been saying since the 90s, global warming climate change is real and now it's worldwide.


Because of climate change the snow crab are gone in Alaska. The population of king crab is dwindling too. People's business have been destroyed. Lives have been changed forever.


Where the crabs and shell fish have gone isn't a mystery.

Meltwater has lowered the alkalinity of the water near what used to be ice packs, and there's not enough base for the critters to grow their shells.
 
Except when it results in giving up living as a first world country and moving back to life as a third world. Meanwhile, doing nothing about the rest of the world.

This results in many Americans looking at climate change as suffering for no reason. If the rest of the world continues to damage the climate at a larger rate than the US, would giving up that first world status be worth it for them?

The choices were very similar for COVID. We can shut down and harm our economy, or we can have people die.
The US burns something like 14% of the world's coal consumption. As fast as we can shut down coal plants, China replaces them several times over, both in China and the Third World. So the issue isn't "Do you believe in Global Warming" but Is it practical for the US to fight it without buy in from the Chinese and Third World? When asked this way, it makes sense for us to look for alternative energy, but not in a headlong rush that leaves us open to massive blackouts and return to Third World status.

We are not Atlas. We cannot carry the World on our backs. We will have to ADAPT to the climate change to which recklessly breeding Third World nations will subject us. This requires a healthy economy.
 
The US burns something like 14% of the world's coal consumption. As fast as we can shut down coal plants, China replaces them several times over, both in China and the Third World. So the issue isn't "Do you believe in Global Warming" but Is it practical for the US to fight it without buy in from the Chinese and Third World? When asked this way, it makes sense for us to look for alternative energy, but not in a headlong rush that leaves us open to massive blackouts and return to Third World status.

We are not Atlas. We cannot carry the World on our backs. We will have to ADAPT to the climate change to which recklessly breeding Third World nations will subject us. This requires a healthy economy.
I agree.
 
Where the crabs and shell fish have gone isn't a mystery.

Meltwater has lowered the alkalinity of the water near what used to be ice packs, and there's not enough base for the critters to grow their shells.


Yes the article says that a large die off must have happened. Mostly because they ruled out everything else.
 
If I was at all interested in it, you'd be correct. If, on the other hand, you are trying to get me to go along with you on this journey, I'd humbly suggest you try.
You and I are just terms to mean, those for climate change initiatives and those on the fence or against.


Hassle, added expense, or just don't go is your answer? To me, that isn't a very good answer.

Only if you have faith in the benevolent government. Not a lot of us do.

I don't disagree. The problem arises when you have roughly half and half that have vividly different views and necessary functions of what the government is supposed to be doing for it's people.

That is the challenge of our times. Apathy. We have too many Americans who take America for granted. They don't think it could ever go away or be broken. They think it can take endless abuse and roll right on. Fellow Americans who hold different political views are not an enemy. They are fellow Americans. Our country needs us all to function. Half of the nation could not be removed without breaking the system, causing recession, causing a depression.

We see pictures of refugees in the news from around the world. The life they have really sucks. We don't want to end up like that. We have to protect America. Yeah, it's quite popular to hate our government. but the truth is, there is every reason to love America, love our Constitution and the government it created.

Apathy allows corruption, which allows big money to influence government. We could fix that if we got organized against it. We just need more people to realize the beauty of our Constitution and embrace the notion of building America. The work is not done. We could write new Amendments if only we could get organized and more unified.

What keeps us apart? Big money.

But we don't need big money to fight big money. What we need is knowledge. We need more well-informed people. All we have to do is share the knowledge of why we are this way, and how to fix it. We get the word out far and wide enough and then we have more power than big money. Big money buys votes, yes, but it can't buy them with BS when we, the people, know better.
 
What teeth did the accord have? What methods of enforcement and punishment were in the agreement? Because China can be a signatory, and do nothing to change, then what?

I mean, we can't even agree what the causes or the solutions are and how we curb them.
It wasn't so much an agreement built upon using methods of enforcement, punishment, much less any act that was legally binding. But rather, one in which all members would at least acknowledge the fact 'climate change' has played a much larger role in the last 100 years than at any other time in human history. That the 'agreement' has several components, two of the most important in my opinion are, one, that it helps establish provisions that help and encourage less developed countries invest in renewable energy sources. And two, it helps to establish a transparency framework system, that in turn, helps support a more unified goal when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. - Meanwhile, China continues to lead the way in a global shift towards renewable energy. https://www.dw.com/en/china-leads-in-global-shift-to-renewable-energy/a-43266203
 
Neither does subsidizing poverty. Someone once said, “The poor you will always have with you”.
I disagree. Government assistance programs definitely lift people out of poverty. As an example, look at SNAP. It is well known that children are able to learn more in school when they are well fed, but if they are hungry, they find it more difficult to focus on the lesson, more difficult to learn and advance.

"The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) lifted 3.4 million people (1.1 percent) in the United States, including 1.5 million children (2.0 percent), out of poverty in 2017.

As one of the largest noncash anti-poverty programs in the United States, SNAP plays a crucial role in providing nutritional assistance to some of the most vulnerable members of society."

SNAP Lifts 3.4 million people out of poverty
 
I disagree. Government assistance programs definitely lift people out of poverty. As an example, look at SNAP. It is well known that children are able to learn more in school when they are well fed, but if they are hungry, they find it more difficult to focus on the lesson, more difficult to learn and advance.

"The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) lifted 3.4 million people (1.1 percent) in the United States, including 1.5 million children (2.0 percent), out of poverty in 2017.

As one of the largest noncash anti-poverty programs in the United States, SNAP plays a crucial role in providing nutritional assistance to some of the most vulnerable members of society."

SNAP Lifts 3.4 million people out of poverty
Because it paid enough to bring them over the 'poverty' threshold isn't at question.
The question is do they get out of poverty after assistance is ended, does assistance ever end?

That is 'out of poverty', otherwise its a silly metric to derive 'out of poverty' while using subsidized money to get them there.
 
Because it paid enough to bring them over the 'poverty' threshold isn't at question.
The question is do they get out of poverty after assistance is ended, does assistance ever end?

That is 'out of poverty', otherwise its a silly metric to derive 'out of poverty' while using subsidized money to get them there.
Hungry children do not learn as well as properly nourished children. Getting a better education is key to a successful productive life.
 
Hungry children do not learn as well as properly nourished children. Getting a better education is key to a successful productive life.
I agree. Those poverty stricken children currently get free and reduced lunches across the US. Do we want to offer up the rich kids the same free or reduced lunches?

It is a sidebar to what was being discussed though. The claim was that Government assistance raises people out of poverty. Does it? Or does it drop them right back into poverty when the assistance goes away?
That has long been my problem with government assistance. It is in the wrong form. When people are handed free money, benefits, they have no need or desire to change or work.
That is the government solidifying them as permanent poverty stricken people, with little to no hope of moving out and away from governmental assistance.
They need work programs, they need a sliding scale, they need educational assistance.

Handing them money/benefits simply hurts them in the long term.
 
I don't know about you guys, but I for one am glad that we're still using 19th century technology to ruin the world for our kids and grandkids. We certainly don't want to upset troglodytes who skipped science class to learn science from AM radio pundits who also skipped science class. Our next step should probably be to pursue large scale coal gasification and use that to fuel diesel diggers to knock down dangerous windmills.
 
Back
Top Bottom