• 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!

The reliability of the climate change consensus and where to go from there

istodolez said:
So you think his lying is a handicap he has? That he simply can't speak truthfully?
Click to expand...

I'm saying you mock Trump...You mock Trump, anyway, even though you think Trump can't tell the truth. I believe you think it's OK to mock someone with a disability if they deserve to be mocked.
People mock Trump's fatness. People mock Trump's small hands. People mock Trump's alleged lying (alleged because the proof of Trump's lying has not always been proof). People mock Trump's orangeness.

Trump has disabilities and is still mocked.
 
istodolez said:
He asked it because he thought it was a really cool idea! Along with getting "light into the body" to fight COVID.

Look, I get it, you love you some Trump. You think he's the cat's pajamas and you just love every idiotic thing that drools out of his mouth from "hamberders" to "covfefe" it's all like golden droplets of beauty to you. You think his description of "uranium" is just the most erudite thing you've ever heard! That's sweet. You enjoy him.

And remember: Trump loves you! He really, really cares about you.
Click to expand...

So, no, Trump didn't say it was OK or even affective to inject a DISINFECTANT to stop Covid. You lied...Trump never mentioned bleach even in his question to Birks. Should I make fun of you?
 
Lord of Planar said:
My God man.

You are really a leftist tool, aren't you. Please show where he said "it was a good idea." And you wonder why I make these confirmation bias claims about you.
Click to expand...

He suggested the doctors look into it. CLEARLY he thought there was something interesting there. Only one who is severely seeking to confirm their bias that Trump isn't saying these things can listen to what he actually said and not come away with the idea that he was interested in it.


My God man. I don't particular like defending president Trump,
Click to expand...

I hear that a lot from Trump defenders. I guess even you guys know he's an albatross around your political positions.

Please show us where he said he "thinks injecting bleach to cure COVID is a good idea."
Click to expand...

“I see disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute, and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s pretty powerful.”

Does that sound to you like he is thinking it's a good idea? It does to me. Sounds like he's really intrigued by his "insight".
 
Lord of Planar said:
Obviously, you are trying to one-up him on not being truthful.
Click to expand...

As you wish. The more your defend him (and you seem to be on a tear defending LITERALLY everything lately) the more your "insights" look, well, a bit iffy.
 
cabse5 said:
I'm saying you mock Trump
Click to expand...

I do mock Trump! But I don't believe his pathological lying is a "disability" of his, but rather a choice. I could be mistaken. He could be suffering from tertiary syphillis (he does like to have unprotected sex with sex workers) and his brain is so severely broken now that he is incapable of speaking truthfully.

I believe you think it's OK to mock someone with a disability if they deserve to be mocked.
Click to expand...

You are free to believe as you wish.

People mock Trump's fatness. People mock Trump's small hands.
Click to expand...

Where did I mention ANY OF THOSE THINGS? Wow. You really shouldn't talk about things you don't know and can't support.

People mock Trump's orangeness.
Click to expand...

So "spray tan" is now a disability?
 
cabse5 said:
So, no, Trump didn't say it was OK or even affective to inject a DISINFECTANT to stop Covid.
Click to expand...

He thought it was interesting:

“I see disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute, and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s pretty powerful.”

You lied...Trump never mentioned bleach even in his question to Birks.
Click to expand...

It is fun to see the lengths you Trump-Lovers will go to to support him. At some point you'll just have to start speaking in grunts because words will no longer have a meaning.

Should I make fun of you?
Click to expand...

It would be funny to see.
 
istodolez said:
He thought it was interesting:

“I see disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute, and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s pretty powerful.”



It is fun to see the lengths you Trump-Lovers will go to to support him. At some point you'll just have to start speaking in grunts because words will no longer have a meaning.



It would be funny to see.
Click to expand...

Why don't you make fun of Trump for asking if light could stop Covid?:roll:
 
[FONT=&quot]97% consensus[/FONT]
[h=1]The Climate of Scott Adams[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach At 73, I’m now in what I call my “late youth”. As a confirmed wanderer, I’ve seen a bit of the world, and I’ve read and studied extensively about our life here on this most lovely planet. As a result of my wide experience, I don’t often come across a…
[/FONT]
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, but we don't have the same constant winds like they do.
Click to expand...

US have a lot of windy areas like for example coastal areas, the Great Lakes and also windy plains. US also have very sunny areas perfect for solar power. Not only solar panels but also concentrated solar power plants with thermal storage that can produce electricity on demand.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
US have a lot of windy areas like for example coastal areas, the Great Lakes and also windy plains. US also have very sunny areas perfect for solar power. Not only solar panels but also concentrated solar power plants with thermal storage that can produce electricity on demand.
Click to expand...

NIMBY rules. Besides, wind has too many problems and too costly for the USA.

Besides, I am all for PV solar panels in the desert areas. I have spoke of this before though, we need an intercontinental HVDC network. That will not be cheap.

You guys really don't understand just how expensive this becomes. I think you need to brush up on logistics. You obviously never took such a class, or if you did, I'll bet you did poorly.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Climate crisis could displace over one billion people by 2050.

Climate crisis could displace 1.2bn people by 2050, report warns | Environment | The Guardian

There you also have the toxic and deadly pollution from fossil fuels with hundred of thousands related death each year just in Europe.

EU says one in eight deaths is linked to pollution - BBC News
Click to expand...

LOL...

The Guardioan article is a joke, as I pointed out in the other thread you linked that.

Air pollution is a serious issue, but isn't so much a problem in first world nations.

China though...

Stop buying "Made in China" as you are contributing to the world pollution.
 
Lord of Planar said:
NIMBY rules. Besides, wind has too many problems and too costly for the USA.

Besides, I am all for PV solar panels in the desert areas. I have spoke of this before though, we need an intercontinental HVDC network. That will not be cheap.

You guys really don't understand just how expensive this becomes. I think you need to brush up on logistics. You obviously never took such a class, or if you did, I'll bet you did poorly.
Click to expand...

That's why it's good with off shore wind power and solar power in the desert that it is not close to their people live. That at the same time you can get solar panels that looks like regular roof tiles, from for example Tesla.

Solar roof

Also you have provided no sources for how costly it will be.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

The Guardioan article is a joke, as I pointed out in the other thread you linked that.

Air pollution is a serious issue, but isn't so much a problem in first world nations.

China though...

Stop buying "Made in China" as you are contributing to the world pollution.
Click to expand...

The evidence for the urgent need for action is overwhelming.

"In a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed the reality of human-caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions “must be substantially reduced” to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health."

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

Also air pollution is still a huge problem in western for example that for example 52% of children under 5 are in developed countries are exposed to toxic air pollution above WHO air quality guidelines.

More than 90% of the world’s children breathe toxic air every day

That you can of course put more pressure on China but western countries needs to also do their part. Instead US now have a president that wants to spend billions on propping up failing coal plants.

Daily chart - Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants | Graphic detail | The Economist
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The evidence for the urgent need for action is overwhelming.

"In a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed the reality of human-caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions “must be substantially reduced” to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health."

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

Also air pollution is still a huge problem in western for example that for example 52% of children under 5 are in developed countries are exposed to toxic air pollution above WHO air quality guidelines.

More than 90% of the world’s children breathe toxic air every day

That you can of course put more pressure on China but western countries needs to also do their part. Instead US now have a president that wants to spend billions on propping up failing coal plants.

Daily chart - Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants | Graphic detail | The Economist
Click to expand...

The best thing we can do to curtail global pollution, is simply stop buying items made in China, and other countries who don't have regulations as tough as ours on pollution.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The best thing we can do to curtail global pollution, is simply stop buying items made in China, and other countries who don't have regulations as tough as ours on pollution.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

But what that means is that the "free market" will be much less "free". The reason I love seeing Conservatives here in the US talk about "free markets" is because none of the ones alive today have ever lived in a true laissez faire free market, nor would they WANT to. Also: market based approaches will be inefficient to solve the problems. Take your suggestion to stop buying Chinese goods. There is literally no way in a free-er market that you can get people to pay MORE for goods when cheaper goods are available. You'd have to impose restrictions hence a less free market.

So your suggestion to curtail pollution is a very good one...but every Conservative in the USA will tell you you are a socialist/communist/facist/dictator-wannabe because you want to FORCE people to do something.
 
istodolez said:
Agreed!

But what that means is that the "free market" will be much less "free". The reason I love seeing Conservatives here in the US talk about "free markets" is because none of the ones alive today have ever lived in a true laissez faire free market, nor would they WANT to. Also: market based approaches will be inefficient to solve the problems. Take your suggestion to stop buying Chinese goods. There is literally no way in a free-er market that you can get people to pay MORE for goods when cheaper goods are available. You'd have to impose restrictions hence a less free market.

So your suggestion to curtail pollution is a very good one...but every Conservative in the USA will tell you you are a socialist/communist/facist/dictator-wannabe because you want to FORCE people to do something.
Click to expand...

Yep.

This is a case where we need to place high tariffs on items made with cheap labor and no conscience of pollution. If the rest were equal, they would be more expensive due to the extra shipping distance.

We should not be buying products for less from other countries that we can make here at home. The only items we shouldn't worry about a tariff are those we don't have the resources for here.

Anyway, this is getting off track from the debate at hand, but I am a firm believer that we need to stop buying cheap items from polluters.

The left was in such a tizzy over cheap labor when it came to NIKE and their shoes. Why be hypocritical now? When it comes to the environment, you guys claim the forward costs of cleaning up. Well, shouldn't that apply to items purchased from other countries? The two main reasons they are cheaper are... very low paid instead of union paid, and almost no environmental concerns when we have to pay dearly for complying with regulations.

If you are for "free trade" without caring for the environment... then what does that say?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yep.

This is a case where we need to place high tariffs on items made with cheap labor and no conscience of pollution. If the rest were equal, they would be more expensive due to the extra shipping distance.

We should not be buying products for less from other countries that we can make here at home. The only items we shouldn't worry about a tariff are those we don't have the resources for here.

Anyway, this is getting off track from the debate at hand, but I am a firm believer that we need to stop buying cheap items from polluters.

The left was in such a tizzy over cheap labor when it came to NIKE and their shoes. Why be hypocritical now? When it comes to the environment, you guys claim the forward costs of cleaning up. Well, shouldn't that apply to items purchased from other countries? The two main reasons they are cheaper are... very low paid instead of union paid, and almost no environmental concerns when we have to pay dearly for complying with regulations.

If you are for "free trade" without caring for the environment... then what does that say?
Click to expand...

OH, I'm totally 100% for non-market-based solutions to these problems. I'm A-OK with eliminating the purchase of cheap goods from China. 25 years ago when I was actively involved in carbon research I remember being at conferences where carbon suppliers were complaining that due to lax environmental controls it was cheaper for China to produce carbon materials and ship them across the Pacific and sell them here than it was for an American company to simply produce their carbon materials.

The global costs are enormous.

Unfortunately part of the "skeptic" and denialist positions in regards to climate and environment is to downplay the severity of the issue, push for market-based only solutions and thereby stall any meaningful action.

Take, as an example, S. Fred Singer. Hired gun "Merchant of Doubt" that the Reagan administration forced onto the Nierenberg Group studying acid rain. He was put on that committee to do what he di best: create doubt for doubts sake as he'd done on other topics. Virtually no one on the Nierenberg group would work with him so he wrote his own "appendix" to the report in which he tried to do a sham economic impact analysis of dealing with acid rain. His estimates in Appendix 5 are all on the "cost" side...and his "question" at the end of attacking a multimillion dollar problem with a billion dollar solution would indicate that he isn't really factoring in the "value" of the environment. Which, I think we can all agree, is worth more than a couple billion dollars.

But if one starts from a position of "doubt for doubt's sake" and one wishes to arrive at a conclusion that reinforces the "do nothing attitude" the fastest way is to think only of out-of-pocket expenses rather than what is being saved.
 
istodolez said:
OH, I'm totally 100% for non-market-based solutions to these problems. I'm A-OK with eliminating the purchase of cheap goods from China. 25 years ago when I was actively involved in carbon research I remember being at conferences where carbon suppliers were complaining that due to lax environmental controls it was cheaper for China to produce carbon materials and ship them across the Pacific and sell them here than it was for an American company to simply produce their carbon materials.

The global costs are enormous.

Unfortunately part of the "skeptic" and denialist positions in regards to climate and environment is to downplay the severity of the issue, push for market-based only solutions and thereby stall any meaningful action.

Take, as an example, S. Fred Singer. Hired gun "Merchant of Doubt" that the Reagan administration forced onto the Nierenberg Group studying acid rain. He was put on that committee to do what he di best: create doubt for doubts sake as he'd done on other topics. Virtually no one on the Nierenberg group would work with him so he wrote his own "appendix" to the report in which he tried to do a sham economic impact analysis of dealing with acid rain. His estimates in Appendix 5 are all on the "cost" side...and his "question" at the end of attacking a multimillion dollar problem with a billion dollar solution would indicate that he isn't really factoring in the "value" of the environment. Which, I think we can all agree, is worth more than a couple billion dollars.

But if one starts from a position of "doubt for doubt's sake" and one wishes to arrive at a conclusion that reinforces the "do nothing attitude" the fastest way is to think only of out-of-pocket expenses rather than what is being saved.
Click to expand...

A start is the "carbon tax" on import that EU plan to implement.

Explainer: What an EU carbon border tax might look like and who would be hit | Reuters

Also that today are billions of dollar spent on marketing while at the same time it can be very hard or even impossible for consumers to found out how the products the buy are produced. So both government policies and public pressure for more transparency can be needed so that consumers can make a more informed choice then they buy both domestic and foreign products.

You can also dispute the neoliberal beliefs that an effective market economy is the same thing as total freedom for companies. That instead for example adding social and environmental costs to the cost of products and also more access to information about the product we consumer buys can lead to a more effective market economy as well contribute to a better society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom