• 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!

Questio for the Warmists (or whatever) What do you want done about it?

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,831
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is the next stage of the "Question for Mithrae; What do you expect to be bad about AGW?".

If you were in charge, what would you do about AGW etc? What policies? How would you change the world? What taxes? What restrictions? What investments?
 
There is nothing to be done about climate change beyond preparation for possible impacts.
 
Tim the plumber said:
This is the next stage of the "Question for Mithrae; What do you expect to be bad about AGW?".

If you were in charge, what would you do about AGW etc? What policies? How would you change the world? What taxes? What restrictions? What investments?
Click to expand...

Zero can be done. But I suspect "warmists' will try to organize a "Global Open Your Refrig/Freezer Day" in hopes of cooling the planet.
 
Tim the plumber said:
This is the next stage of the "Question for Mithrae; What do you expect to be bad about AGW?".

If you were in charge, what would you do about AGW etc? What policies? How would you change the world? What taxes? What restrictions? What investments?
Click to expand...

I would subsidize Renewable Energy at LOCAL levels as a National Policy. I would start eliminating the use of hydrocarbon/petro fuels. Reduce car sizes to utility runabouts with one cylinder engines that charged the batteries and ran electrically and be required to get 100 mpg. I would make multiNational Corporations illegal and subsidize entrepreneural endeavors to replace them and that includes BANKS. I'd outlaw the Federal Reserve and subsidize creation of State Banks like South Dakota. I'd change Agricultural policies to support small family farms and penalize Mega Corporate farms. I'd outlaw GMO seeds without multi-generational testing. I'd recommend property tax free status for Mom and Pop LOCAL stores of many types. There would be no subsidization of Petro energy, banking, housing, automobile, insurance, chemical, trading, military, or other Mega Corporate entities. Congressmen and women would be paid the average wage of all USA workers and would punch time cards be required to submit travel vouchers for transportation. Downsize all gov't Regualtory agencis after culling out the Corporate shills that tend to migrate in to positions of authority in all of these agencies. Budget Military Defense, not Military Offense and perhaps 1/4th of current levels and perhaps even less. That'd be just getting started. I'd eliminate the CIA and NSA entirely. I'd make all drugs legal. I'd eliminate the DEA. I'd eliminate foreign embassies and have just one Ambassadorial representative in each Country. I'd break up huge food distribution monopolies and any and all Corporations that hide assets overseas. One can dream. The unemployed would be the employees to do the Renewable Energy works Nationwide and begin small farms with gov't suport and policies that allowed them to market their products. Milk laws would be changed.
 

National policy is not going to have a significant effect on a global problem. Elimination of the economy of scale in agriculture would end up using more energy and producing less food.
 
The problem I believe we have with climate change is you have a polarized debate. You're either in the evil corporatist camp, exploiting all the worlds resources for financial gain the harm done to the planet be damned -- or -- you're a patchouli stankin, Birkenstock wearin, PETA supporting tree hugger who mindlessly follows the words of Al Gore (who is no less a corporatist but wants to profit (and has) off the saving of the planet) regardless of the actual scientific data.

We've got to look at this rationally. Are there negative effects on the environment which are directly caused by man? YES. Should we do something about this? YES. Does this translate into a governmental push for bilking corporate dollars -- taking away from one group and giving to another? NO.

The way I see it is that you've got one side denying the problem and one side providing solutions that won't fix the problem but will grant control to organizations who'll provide solutions in a timely matter that will produce results for profit to the people whom pay to put those people in power. It's ridiculous, it has turned a legitimate concern for us all into a political power struggle.

Common ground would be sensible legislation based on solutions to the problem and not worrying about who'll profit from those solutions. Which is what the fuss is all about. Who will profit.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
National policy is not going to have a significant effect on a global problem. Elimination of the economy of scale in agriculture would end up using more energy and producing less food.
Click to expand...

Some Nation has to lead and show the way. That could be us. I'm not sure I agree with the agricultural argument. We need small farms back in business, locally, all over the Nation. The Amish would give you a sound argument. They seem to be in harmony with the environment and don't use lots of energy.
 

The Amish use almost no energy but they also "do without" most gov't and outside commercial services including education beyond the 8th grade. So long as you (and every other US citizen) wish to do without, as the Amish choose, then your plan (policy) could work. I suspect that very few would wish to live as the Amish do and give up higher educatiopn, public utlities, televsion and computers.
 

The problem with AGW is that money has made the science political. It's no longer research of a theory or the collection for scientific data, it's become competition for research grants and a cause that's turned into a religion for millions of people who don't understand the science and in many cases don't even know how science is supposed to work. Anyone who says they believe in AGW has bought into the religion of political eco causes. Anyone who denies AGW has closed their minds to the possibility of discovery. One thing is certain. Treating AGW as fact is nothing but Pascal's Wager. It's not bound by science and until AGW is testable and proven, it's just a guess.
 

Yeah, but see...Cause and Effect are facts. Don't need a PHd from MIT to figure that out...
 
ChezC3 said:
Yeah, but see...Cause and Effect are facts. Don't need a PHd from MIT to figure that out...
Click to expand...


This is what I'm talking about. Cause and effect aren't facts within the boundaries of the scientific method. The scientific method starts with an observation in the natural world, then several hypothesis are constructed. The hypothesis are distilled into a theory or several theories and the theories are tested. If a theory is tested it becomes fact or law. Newton's law of gravity was recently called into question by an astronomer named Hongsheng Zhao who offered one that differed from that of Newton so, because science demands an open mind the law has changed the way gravity is though of scientifically.

So saying cause and effect are facts may make some common sense, in the realm of scientific study they aren't facts.

You have illustrated the layman's problem with the understanding of AGW and many other scientific theories. You know enough to be dangerous. The best thing you can do is understand the scientific process and live your life within your beliefs but not judge the science until it's settled. Keep in mind that it's not settled by public opinion, research does that.
 



And thus trample on every right and freedom in the United States Constitution.

That style of solution has been tried again and again, only with different objectives, USSR, China etc. Look how well that massive intervention worked then.

And then there is paying for all that subsidization with no corporate taxes, since they've been eliminated......
 

Cause and effect aren't facts within the boundaries of the scientific method? Really? Last I checked, the scientific method was put into place to demonstrate cause and effect. Maybe you're not explaining yourself right...

You use scientific THEORY as evidence to refute this. We may be wrong with what cause created what effect but we are not wrong in knowing that the effect had a cause. To say otherwise is to simply speak madness..
 


Please read this article. I think it explains cause and effect fairly well in scientific terms.
Establishing Cause and Effect - Scientific Causality
 

Right.... so the global warming thing is just an excuse to do some sort of smi-Maoist revolution involving the destruction of international trade.....
 

They use plenty of artificial fertilizer.
 

If you build your house SOLAR, you need give up nothing. Renewables are satisfactory for most things. Large motors being the exception. The post is about change to mitigate warming and this is a comprehensive solution, not a half step. You build a Solar Home like a walk-in cooler and then add small windows and sliding glass doors on the south side with Solar panels attached to the glazing.
 

Identify the rights andfreedoms trampled.
We're not talking about USSR or China and you are absolutely wrong, if not, provide links. Precise links.
I believe we subsidize more Corporations than Corporations subsidize us. Again, if you disagree, document it.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Right.... so the global warming thing is just an excuse to do some sort of smi-Maoist revolution involving the destruction of international trade.....
Click to expand...



I don't believe your choice of words relates to anything in my post. Not even a good try.
 
i want to see fossil fuels eliminated, but not necessarily for warming reasons. i see a finite resource that will give people a good excuse to kill each other right around the time my kids are having kids, and i do not want that.

so, what would i do? i would create a moonshot initiative to completely replace our energy model within thirty years. i would fund public research, and use electricity as a transitional fuel. this will require a massive upgrade of the grid, which i would use public / private partnerships to accomplish. the new grid would be nuclear and renewables, and ideally, i'd go with thorium.

as for how to pay for it, i do not support carbon taxes, as they are among the most regressive. i'd probably pull most of it from active military spending. i support honoring and expanding benefits for our veterans, but i think that from now on we need to focus on making things that don't kill people. the rest of the world relies on us to solve every military problem and then resents us for getting involved. time for someone else to step up, and our kids should be building roads and electrical plants instead of going into harm's way. it's time to nation build right here at home.

and if that doesn't free up enough money to get the job done, we raise taxes. on everyone, not just the rich.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Right.... so the global warming thing is just an excuse to do some sort of smi-Maoist revolution involving the destruction of international trade.....
Click to expand...

Well lets just say its the societal restructuring that's the real agenda behind all this. Talking up global warming/climate change/climate disruption (or whatever epithet they choose to ascribe to it this week) is just the latest trendy conduit that is hoped will facilitate that end.

Are you familiar with the term 'watermelon' ?
 


Therein we have the essence of the failure of the preachings of warmists. The developed a THEORY that loss of the Polar ice cap will be a destruction of the Polar Bear population. But, when it was discovered that the Poplar Bear population was in fact increasing with less ice, they changed the theory to fit the reality, now saying that of course there would be an increase and THEN they will die off.

Same with the temperature forecasts, revised downward what, six times? They now deny the same figures the "denialists" were challenging, in favor of the more moderate figures for which some academics were driven out of their positions.

That is not "settled" science, that is junk science.
 

so, gravity is not "settled" but global warming is....

Gravity is pretty basic don't you think? Was Honsheng Zhao shouted down for being a denialist?

You can't suck and blow at the same time...if something as established as Newton's Law of Gravity can be challenged, then so can the very foundation of global warming.

But try it......

Look at the hostile crap that flows out of that science. When you have to demonize your opponent like the Roman church did to Galileo, then knowledge base is likely bull****. That's why the people making fortunes off this myth have to go nuts, lest anyone actually make sense.

The best example is how you pretzel that cause and effect aren't facts. Then use those same non facts to prove your case.

Cause and effect is the essence of science, plant a seed in soil. It grows. fact. It is planted in cardboard, does not grow. fact.

Why is the theory end, not the facts
 
Last edited:

Well, you've succeeded in totally misrepresenting what I've said in the most confusing possible way of communicating.

First, gravity and AGW are both not settled. My opinion about AGW is that it will never be proven. I was a geology major in college and had a semester of paleoclimatology and I know how much temperature and climate have varied through the geologic timeline. The most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor and contained in the first twenty feet of atmosphere. Without water vapor, we'd all be dead and the earth would be a barren rock. I believe that CO2 build up follows temperature and doesn't create it. I know enough about science however to know that my opinion doesn't count and if AGW is proven I will admit I am wrong.

Gravity had been known as a law. It's foundation was rooted in the big bang and an astronomer whose ability to understand it far exceeds my ability called Newton's theory into question. Read about it. You have a computer. I wouldn't take the theory of gravity as lightly as you have however.

Science in itself is pure. People corrupt it. The church used it's dogma to punish scientific thinkers through history. Is there a point to your passive aggressive rant about science and the church or did you just go off the rails for a moment?

Having a theory about where you lost your keys and then the fact that they where you thought you lost them is not the scientific use of the term theory and fact. Neither is planting a seed and having it grow. My suggestion to you is that you do quite a bit of reading about the scientific method, try to grasp the meanings of the basic terms. You clearly don't understand them and you don't understand the conversation that we've had about science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…