Welcome to Dem Land

[Richard]

I think if the DNC had thier way it would only be Biden up there,the rest are just filler entertainment to make it look good.

They did have some sense of normalcy by not having a single climate change fraud debate.

But it is still early,they may have somebody waiting in the wings not yet brought out front.

[Shelby_]

They did have some sense of normalcy by not having a single climate change fraud debate.

Am I reading that right Richard? Are you saying you think climate change is a fraud?

Btw there's no need for the Democrats to debate climate change during the debates. They're all reasonably educated people. I think they're all in agreement that climate change is one of the greatest existential threats of our time.

[Dan Wesson]

Am I reading that right Richard? Are you saying you think climate change is a fraud?

Btw there's no need for the Democrats to debate climate change during the debates. They're all reasonably educated people. I think they're all in agreement that climate change is one of the greatest existential threats of our time.

Hmmmmmm...
Can I interest you in some Carbon Credits?

[Shelby_]

That is the battle within the Democratic Party,the progressive socialist against the conservative Democrats who have always maintained the balance between the republicans and the democrats.

If the progressive socialists unseat the conservative aspect the only thing left will be the Republicans and socialists who are itching to revamp the constitution already.

It may be easier in the future to just refer to the socialists as the socialist party and the conservative Democrats as that.Even the borderline liberals do not seem to exist and just blended in with the socialists.

How do you define socialism or socialist? In what way do you believe these socialists are itching to revamp the constitution?

"Socialism" has a broad definition with multiple schools of thought divided on many issues and sometimes even splits within the same school.

I find it advantageous to define terms before discussing a subject.

[Shelby_]

Hmmmmmm...
Can I interest you in some Carbon Credits?

Compliance Market credits or Secondary/Verified Market credits?

[Dan Wesson]

Compliance Market credits or Secondary/Verified Market credits?

VER's of course.

[Richard]

Am I reading that right Richard? Are you saying you think climate change is a fraud?

Btw there's no need for the Democrats to debate climate change during the debates. They're all reasonably educated people. I think they're all in agreement that climate change is one of the greatest existential threats of our time.

Remember our discussion about useing ones fear as a profit motivator?

Climate change is real and has been for over 2000 years,humans being able to alter it is the fraud aspect.

Ice age?
The Nile River Valley was lush until climate change caused it not to be.
1000s of years ago Florida was under water until climate change.
Dupont held the only patent for Freon until you were told it kills the ozone and other companies all of the sudden had replacements advailable the next day.

Freon is heavier then air at a ratio of 4 to 1 how exactly does it defy gravity and rise up to the ozone?

What releases ozone killing stuff? Volcanos

Al Gore had signs placed at glacier national Park telling people to enjoy the glaciers because by 2020 they would be gone,it is 2019 and they have increased in size according to cycles.

The sun evaporates the oceans and the glaciers melt to replace the water,that is thier sole reason for existing,sometims they melt faster and sometimes slower,they have been for over 2000 years.

Climate change is causing more rain and causes floods,no,humans altering the natural flow of the water creates floods,building dikes to change the flow of water in order to create farmland forces more water into the rivers and then into the ocean causing the sea levels to rise and fall and the drinking water tables to fall.

The new green deal has zero to do with climate change,it is about creating a new economy based on climate change much like the Industrial Age created a new economy.

But it is centered around changing an economy based on the premise that it will alter climate change,which will never happen.

Save the trees,a renewal resource was used to bring you the plastic age and create a new economy,how is that working out?

The smart ones in the UK have determined that animals contribute to climate change,so now we should change our diet to non meat products in order to save the planet.

Solar panels were going to save the planet,billions of dollars were made and lost in the process and yet they still play little role in the grand scheme of things.

We will never control the climate and how it meanders along,All they are doing is creating new mousetraps to sell and useing climate change as a marketing tool and we are all going to die if we do not buy thier products.

Do we stop the rain or do we put roofs on our dwellings and use umbrellas?

The pollution aspect of the 1960s and 1970s brought about forced regulated change that shut down industries and factories and put millions out of work across the globe and placed them into the service economy but yet cities are still polluted and the trash still washes up on the beaches.

If anybody really cared about the planet they would change thier buying habits from cheap disposable crap to quality products that do not have to be replaced every 6 months,it is clear that they do not,claiming to care about the planet while being a contributor to the mounds of trash being dumped into the ocean.

We can do nothing about climate change but we can have a cleaner planet but then people would actually have to participate in thier own cause of the week,it is clear that they do not.

AOC,the godmother of the new green deal,a young healthy person calls for a Uber,the company that she protested against,to go 6 blocks.

[Shelby_]

There's a lot to unpack here. It might take time, but I will try to respond to all of your points.

Climate change is real and has been for over 2000 years,humans being able to alter it is the fraud aspect.

False.



Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising by 15 gigatons per year.

Confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity come by analyzing the types of CO2 found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes [[different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.

Ice age?
The Nile River Valley was lush until climate change caused it not to be.
1000s of years ago Florida was under water until climate change.

I take this to mean you're saying climate changed before.

First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is a logical fallacy [[non-sequitar) As shown above, humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.

Furthermore, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past.

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Dupont held the only patent for Freon until you were told it kills the ozone and other companies all of the sudden had replacements advailable the next day. Freon is heavier then air at a ratio of 4 to 1 how exactly does it defy gravity and rise up to the ozone?

The atmosphere is not stagnant. Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight. Gases such as CFCs that are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive in the lower atmosphere [[below about 10 kilometers) are quickly mixed and therefore reach the stratosphere regardless of their weight.

What releases ozone killing stuff? Volcano

Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

Al Gore had signs placed at glacier national Park telling people to enjoy the glaciers because by 2020 they would be gone,it is 2019 and they have increased in size according to cycles.

This is cherry picking. While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.



Negative [[left of 0) indicates loss.

That's it for now.

[Richard]

NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 satellite can see the buildup of carbon dioxide around cities, says project scientist Michael Gunson, but researchers are still trying to figure out whether the scale of the data is 'good enough to verify human activity.'[[NASA)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/m...ases-1.3340162

So they do not know.

You have scientific research being done and presented by scientists not climate scientists.

The same scientists that said it was okay to put cocaine in Coca Cola.
Asbestos is the latest and greatest.
Lead is the best use in water pipes.
Mercury is good for medical uses.

R12 Freon was used from the 1930s,the first atmospheric testing was in 1958.

It took from 1958 to 1992 for the experts to figure out it was Freon killing the ozone?

What were they doing all of that time?

The thing about scientists is that they are right until they are wrong and you guys want the American taxpayer to continue to spend millions every year on climate change and the most they can give you is best guess?

And now you want to change the entire economy based on best guess?

For every scientist that you can link that says we are doomed because of climate change,I can link to another scientist that disputes testing methodology.

How exactly were scientists from 7000 years ago testing the atmosphere for carbon emissions on the off chance that it will be valuable information 70000 years down the road.

My whole oceans are rising is a bunch of bull uses a simple scientific process.

A lot on an island in the Gulf of Mexico and a .39 dollar store ruler stuck in the ground for 8 years,the ocean water level rose and the ocean water level fell,my property line where it meets the water remained the same.

I bought the lot cheap from the previous owner who got scared because he was told Florida was going to be under water in ten years,granted there are still two years left.

If you have any friends that have ocean front property in Florida and are like minded and are ready to bail,let me know,I will be nice and give them .30 on the dollar,cash,tell em to hurry though once the ocean rises more,the values drop.

[coracle]

#508. Not another “CV” to not read!

[coracle]

Does warren shop for her wardrobe at The Salvation Army?

[Richard]

Does warren shop for her wardrobe at The Salvation Army?

Its part of her strategy of pretending to being able to relate to the working class.

She has a net worth of 8 million,there has to be some kind of irony in there with multi millionaire politicians claiming to side with the working class on a platform of going after millionaires and they are the cause of your sorrows.

[canuck]

NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 satellite can see the buildup of carbon dioxide around cities, says project scientist Michael Gunson, but researchers are still trying to figure out whether the scale of the data is 'good enough to verify human activity.'[[NASA)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/m...ases-1.3340162

So they do not know.

You have scientific research being done and presented by scientists not climate scientists.

The same scientists that said it was okay to put cocaine in Coca Cola.
Asbestos is the latest and greatest.
Lead is the best use in water pipes.
Mercury is good for medical uses.

You just proved the opposite of what you intended to dismiss on the issue of oversight and regulatory practices. That scientists found cocaine in Coke ages ago means that the secret recipe needed to be amended for public health concerns.

Asbestos was considered a useful product but oversight was not just lacking, the evidence is that governments [[Canada,big time) and corporations colluded in spite of the health hazards.

Lead has been known since the Romans [[historian Seneca) to be dangerous to humans, the Romans used lead pipes more than 2000 years ago. That we kept using lead solder and pipes for potable water is another aberration that needs attention.

Mercury and radium were used for curative or cosmetic and other purposes, in spite of the perceived dangers of these elements. This also points to lack of regulatory practices, and good governance, all things that Chumpty Dumpty is fast-tracking to oblivion to please his libertarian backers.

[Canadian Visitor]

#508. Not another “CV” to not read!

What is it that you have against people who think?

People who articulate carefully thoughtout views, supported by evidence?

What is it that makes you angry that you have to read more than 3 paragraphs, and maybe even a chart or a diagram?

The burden it places on you can't be that tough; somehow millions of others manage these feats regularly, sometimes many times per day.

Why don't you whine a bit less, think a bit harder, or just disappear if you can't be bothered contributing something useful?

[Richard]

You just proved the opposite of what you intended to dismiss on the issue of oversight and regulatory practices. That scientists found cocaine in Coke ages ago means that the secret recipe needed to be amended for public health concerns.

Asbestos was considered a useful product but oversight was not just lacking, the evidence is that governments [[Canada,big time) and corporations colluded in spite of the health hazards.

Lead has been known since the Romans [[historian Seneca) to be dangerous to humans, the Romans used lead pipes more than 2000 years ago. That we kept using lead solder and pipes for potable water is another aberration that needs attention.

Mercury and radium were used for curative or cosmetic and other purposes, in spite of the perceived dangers of these elements. This also points to lack of regulatory practices, and good governance, all things that Chumpty Dumpty is fast-tracking to oblivion to please his libertarian backers.

That whoosh sound going over your head was not a low flying 747 lol

The point is science has a history of discovery that turns out later to actually be detrimental or just plain wrong.

Can I interest you in some weed killer?

Al Gore went from a net worth of 2 million to over $300 million mostly from green investments that involved government funding and grants that went belly up.

He owns ocean front property.
The previous president owns beachfront property in Hawaii [[remember magnum PI) and California.

I guess those two at least are not concerned about rising sea levels.

There is lots of money selling green,lots of incentives and lots of wishful thinking.

The scientists that are tasked to provide the bases for making green decisions cannot even agree with each other but yet let’s throw trillions into saving a planet where it cannot be determined what it is exactly that we need to do if anything.

Until then I will work on the premise that Mother Nature is going to do what she is going to do and there is not a thing that we can do about it outside of prepare or adapt.

They cannot even determine the appearance of a tornado in a space of 10 minutes let alone what is going to happen 10-20 years down the road.

Heck a weatherman with millions of dollars of equipment at thier disposal cannot even accurately predict rain from on hour to the next.

You can waste you money on best guess,not mine.

[canuck]

^^^
Scientists will gladly point out that they enthusiastically approve, applaud and welcome refutation of standing hypotheses and theory. The whole point of science is to progress toward further discovery. You seem to be good at disproving stuff that you have very little knowledge of.

It's a teleological thing, like bows and arrows magically transmogrified into handguns. What came first, the kitchen or the egg?

Be happy you live in a world that has been improved and yet also damaged by science in a big way. It's not what you wishfully want it to be as Mick Jagger used to say, but if you try sometime, you just might find... some unrelative truths.

[Shelby_]

The point is science has a history of discovery that turns out later to actually be detrimental or just plain wrong.

Talk about a woosh sound. You've hit upon something here Richard, even if you don't know it. In the philosophy of science, a hypothesis is considered scientific only if there is the possibility to disprove the hypothesis.

[Shelby_]

What is it that you have against people who think?

People who articulate carefully thoughtout views, supported by evidence?

I'm not surprised. Anti-intellectualism is what's at the core of Trumpism, and climate denial-ism.

[Richard]

I'm not surprised. Anti-intellectualism is what's at the core of Trumpism, and climate denial-ism.

It did not take long to jump on the bandwagon I see.

Last resort of being unable to look at other views is to just call others stupid.

What does that say about a person that actually thinks that is cool?

It was only a day or two ago that you posted that what you just posted was not your style,but yet here you are.

[Richard]

^^^
Scientists will gladly point out that they enthusiastically approve, applaud and welcome refutation of standing hypotheses and theory. The whole point of science is to progress toward further discovery. You seem to be good at disproving stuff that you have very little knowledge of.

It's a teleological thing, like bows and arrows magically transmogrified into handguns. What came first, the kitchen or the egg?

Be happy you live in a world that has been improved and yet also damaged by science in a big way. It's not what you wishfully want it to be as Mick Jagger used to say, but if you try sometime, you just might find... some unrelative truths.

I can tell that you also have your doubts otherwise you would not divert the discussion towards me personally.

So let’s make it about you.

You are facing two scientists,one says they have the answer and the other says how they achieved that answer can be called into question.

They are both experts in thier fields.

Who are you going believe over the other and why?

The ones that are in denial are the ones that need to step up and prove at least man was responsible for the ice age and could have prevented it if they had changed thier ways.

You cannot erase past history in order to bolster an agenda.

Half of the scientists say the earth is getting warmer and the other half say in the last 100 years the temperatures have had little change.

Posting fancy charts and graphs does not provide evidence,anybody can create a chart or graph according to what direction they wish to go,even more so if grant money is involved.

Until the profit motive is taken out of determining climate change it will always be he said she said.

This is not about choosing new curtains,it is about implementing policies that will end up costing trillions by people that cannot even figure out how to fix an inner city school system.

Almost as bad as the previous administrations bridges program,which actually provided the hundreds of thousands of homeless that they threw on the streets a place to sleep under or jump off out of despair.

If they spent half of the time and resources that they do trying to change the world on fixing the one we live in now we would not be in the position we are in.

California airport that claims to be on the cutting edge of saving the planet bans plastic water bottles and sells water in aluminum cans for $6 while providing plastic straws in order to drink it.

I would almost bet that everybody that claims to be saving the planet,has bottled water in plastic,drives a car,flying in airplanes,buying cheap disposable products that are shipped thousands of miles by fossil fuel burning ships,brings home their groceries in plastic non recyclable bags,even going as far as driving a car for in excess of an hour in traffic in order to go to work.

Even at the save the plant rallies they leave a mountain of trash.

If all of the people that actually care as much as they proclaim to about the planet actually followed what they expect everybody else to do it might be a bit more believable.

yay I am saving the planet when I drive my Prius to the grocery store in order to stock up on bottled water.

Then when I get home I can plug it into a electrical outlet to charge the batteries,which are bad for the environment,and use electricity provided by a power plant that uses natural gas,coal or fossil fuels in order to generate the power.

Not to even mention the amount of fossil fuels that were needed to produce the car in the first place.

Not many supporters who actually walk the talk when it comes to saving the plant,then they expect a pat on the back because they signed up for the cause of the week.

There is a difference between advocating for a cause and actually doing what you are advocating for.

People think they are saving the planet by putting thier plastic in the recycling bin,but they are not.

But yet you are provided and taxed for a special,wait for it,plastic container to put it in.

Only the cleanest gets bailed up and sent to China where is is put through a process that spews the toxins directly back into the air,the rest goes into the landfill.

https://qz.com/82640/china-doesnt-wa...erican-cities/

[oladub]

I'm not surprised. Anti-intellectualism is what's at the core of Trumpism, and climate denial-ism.

Speaking of intellectuals, I've come across a couple of articles comparing Elizabeth Warren with Woodrow Wilson. Both come across as Waspy professorial types with a program for everything. Wilson gave us the military draft, the Federal Reserve, and the federal income tax. His federal income tax was going to be limited to taxing the top 4% on income earners. Sen. Warren is proposing a new wealth tax which, she assures us, will only tax the top 2% of wealth holders.

[Shelby_]

It did not take long to jump on the bandwagon I see.

Last resort of being unable to look at other views is to just call others stupid.

What does that say about a person that actually thinks that is cool?

It was only a day or two ago that you posted that what you just posted was not your style,but yet here you are.

Oh FFS Anti intellectualism is a sociopolitical movement going back to the early 70's. Philosophically it is exactly what Coracle expressed in 510. It doesn't equate unintelligent and I wasn't applying the term as a pejorative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-i...#United_States

[Shelby_]

Does warren shop for her wardrobe at The Salvation Army?

Do you have something against people who shop at the Sal?

[Shelby_]

Its part of her strategy of pretending to being able to relate to the working class.

She has a net worth of 8 million,there has to be some kind of irony in there with multi millionaire politicians claiming to side with the working class on a platform of going after millionaires and they are the cause of your sorrows.

Or maybe she just likes to be comfortable. Maybe she isn't obsessed with possessions. Black pants, black top, and a bright colored blazer is a look she has favored going back a few years.

[Zacha341]

I hear that, I just don't know why many [[especially young people I work with) associate business/ dress attire/ clothes with discomfort? Buy clothes/ shoes that fit whatever style......

If I have on too tight jeans I'm uncomfortable. Same in too tight dress slacks. What I hate is being too casual when dressing better would presented far better for event. And casual can be VERY expensive too.

I doubt FB CEO Zuckerberg's sporting a dollar Walmart t-shirts when he wears them. He smartly knows how to jump into a suit when needed as well.

Or maybe she just likes to be comfortable. Maybe she isn't obsessed with possessions. Black pants, black top, and a bright colored blazer is a look she has favored going back a few years.