The Popular Vote... - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

By Presvias
#15035447
Tainari88 wrote:The worst part of that is that the system only respects corporate stuff and corporate power. Nothing else. Total sellouts. So? What relief do average citizens have from all that sellout nightmare?

If something is not done about it soon? It is just a dictatorship of the rich and bought off and corporate. The political position is just window dressing at that point.


True. It's the old point about 'reforming capitalism' being akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

And they do seem hellbent on mutually assured suicide, which is terrible.

I don't understand the idea of the pursuit of profit at any cost; my only guess is that power corrupts people so much that they absolutely lose sight of the bigger picture and gain this tunnel vision towards higher profit and more power.

(I'm guessing in Bolsonaro's case, the coke helps too)
#15035452
Bolsonaro is like all of the South American Right wing freaks. Violent, intolerant, racist and sexist and uncaring and full of ego. A bad combo.

Brazil needs fine leadership that is incorruptible. It is critical. But? Who knows when it it will get it?
#15035456
Drlee wrote:Of course Rancid is correct. Attempts to rationalize your hyperbole is not worthy of your level of debate. The fact is that the US not only does a great deal about pollution, but it was one of the first nations to do so by creating a major government agency to do it.


No. And to further cement my point, please note the lack of any meaningful climate change action from the White House at any time.

And the lack of any evidence that the USA has ever done anything is also noted.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15035534
No. And to further cement my point, please note the lack of any meaningful climate change action from the White House at any time.


Bullshit. From Nixon's Environmental Protection Agency to Obama's increased CAFE standards the Whitehouse has done plenty. We have subsidized solar to the tune of billions of dollars. We have enacted clean air, open space laws, cleaner nuclear energy and cleaner coal plants for decades.
And the lack of any evidence that the USA has ever done anything is also noted.


Then you are fucking blind. Try your childish tactics with someone else. This time you are just plain wrong. Note to moderators. I did not use the word lying though it would be appropriate.

[KS mod edit: Rule 2 (disclaimer notwithstanding)]
#15035537
Drlee wrote:Bullshit. From Nixon's Environmental Protection Agency to Obama's increased CAFE standards the Whitehouse has done plenty. We have subsidized solar to the tune of billions of dollars. We have enacted clean air, open space laws, cleaner nuclear energy and cleaner coal plants for decades.


Again, the USA has done nothing meaningful on climate change.

While some of this is laudable, in terms of you guys not being as awful as you used to be, it is still not meaningful action on climate change.

...a rude insult...


You have a habit of being rude when people disagree with you.

Actually what you are is being completely disingenuous. Try your childish tactics with someone else. This time you are just plain wrong. Note to moderators. I did not use the word lying though it would be appropriate.


Your continued lack of evidence is noted.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15035539
Bullshit again. Nice try. Your inability to understand the basic science of solar energy, high cafe standards and cleaning coal plants, all of which help to curb global warming is noted. Perhaps you should stick to threads that do not require basic scientific understanding. :roll:

[KS mod edit: Rule 2]
User avatar
By Drlee
#15035545
I have cited evidence. In fact I did it in the previous post and the one before it. Your inability to read is noted.
#15035552
Presvias wrote:Just rechecked the graphs and tbh they don't back the spirit of your point. CO2 from 'all fossil fuels' actually went up last year.

It looks like 'overall' (your word) the US is, in real terms, doing less than nothing.

Is that dishonest? Or is it misleading to say that the US is realistically doing something when the figures say otherwise??

It's misleading. Even with last years figures, US CO2 emissions are down 12.1% from 2007. One way we could cut emissions is building gas pipelines to the Bakken instead of flaring off gas at the well head, which is an absurdly unreasonable waste of energy. The US has continued to shut down coal plants and bring natural gas plants online.

Rancid wrote:You should see pictures and read about how horrible pollution was in the US before the 60s-70s. If you have that historical context, you would realize the US has actually done a lot (but arguable, not enough) to clean up the environment.

They have done a lot, including outsourcing our most polluting industries to China where there aren't environmental controls of the kind we have in the US.

Presvias wrote:The whole global warming consensus only started to form in the 70s in america didn't it?

It was known about in the 40s though.

Global temperatures went down from the 1940s to the 1970s.

Drlee wrote:The fact is that the US not only does a great deal about pollution, but it was one of the first nations to do so by creating a major government agency to do it.

Drlee is correct here. While environmental controls to address industrial pollution weren't significantly enacted until the 1970s, the US had already created national parks, national forests, national monuments, etc. dating back to the 19th Century.

For oil refining, back in the 19th Century, gasoline was considered a waste product and they often just dumped it into rivers. The Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, OH caught fire many times.
Cuyahoga River Fire

Randy Newman has a sardonic song about it. "The Lord can make you overflow, but the Lord can't make you burn..."


It's also worthy to note the that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created by Richard Nixon.

Drlee wrote:We have very high ( and I believe among the highest) vehicle emission standards in the world.

The US also developed the catalytic converter technology to break down emissions to their basic components, starting with French immigrant Eugene Houdray who created them for smokestacks, and then developed for automobiles by American engineers at Engelhard corporation. Production catalytic converters use either platinum or palladium, and the fluctuations of those commodity markets have an impact on which method to use to produce catalytic converters. So yes, your car today contains some precious metals.

Drlee wrote:Clearly it does not do enough and it has this absurd notion that developing countries should be allowed to continue to pollute profligately. India and China are prime examples. The very notion that China is a "developing country" is absurd.

Yes, and more concrete problems like the Pacific Garbage Patch is mostly due to Asian countries dumping plastics into the sea.

Tainari88 wrote:Brazil needs fine leadership that is incorruptible.

Brazil led the world in ethanol production, which they did for strategic reasons. The US and Brazil account for 85% of global ethanol production.
Moynihan, as Nixon aide, warned of global warming
#15035556
blackjack21 wrote:It's misleading. Even with last years figures, US CO2 emissions are down 12.1% from 2007. One way we could cut emissions is building gas pipelines to the Bakken instead of flaring off gas at the well head, which is an absurdly unreasonable waste of energy. The US has continued to shut down coal plants and bring natural gas plants online.


My claim is 'exactly what it says on the tin', one could say your relativistic claim is misleading vs my empirical one.


They have done a lot, including outsourcing our most polluting industries to China where there aren't environmental controls of the kind we have in the US.

Well that was stupid as fick, seeing as we all live on the same runcible planet.

Global temperatures went down from the 1940s to the 1970s.


I wrote 'was known about', based on several article clippings I saw from the 1940s.

You tell me whether these are fake or not, I do not know.

Image
Image
Image
Image


Drlee is correct here. While environmental controls to address industrial pollution weren't significantly enacted until the 1970s, the US had already created national parks, national forests, national monuments, etc. dating back to the 19th Century.

For oil refining, back in the 19th Century, gasoline was considered a waste product and they often just dumped it into rivers. The Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, OH caught fire many times.
Cuyahoga River Fire

It's also worthy to note the that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created by Richard Nixon.


The US also developed the catalytic converter technology to break down emissions to their basic components, starting with French immigrant Eugene Houdray who created them for smokestacks, and then developed for automobiles by American engineers at Engelhard corporation. Production catalytic converters use either platinum or palladium, and the fluctuations of those commodity markets have an impact on which method to use to produce catalytic converters. So yes, your car today contains some precious metals.


Yes, and more concrete problems like the Pacific Garbage Patch is mostly due to Asian countries dumping plastics into the sea.


Brazil led the world in ethanol production, which they did for strategic reasons. The US and Brazil account for 85% of global ethanol production.
Moynihan, as Nixon aide, warned of global warming[/quote]


That doesn't change the fact that emissions are going up since Stump got into power and that he supports idiots like Ballsack-Nero and others who would gladly burn the world. Oh and Strump is actually pro-global warming; he said it'd make for hotter summers. Him + his cognitively dissonant, sophist lemming herd are certainly suffering from brain damage from pollution, seeing as everytime they talk it adds methane, skatole etc..

(shrug)
By Hindsite
#15035559
Presvias wrote:True. It's the old point about 'reforming capitalism' being akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

And they do seem hellbent on mutually assured suicide, which is terrible.

I don't understand the idea of the pursuit of profit at any cost; my only guess is that power corrupts people so much that they absolutely lose sight of the bigger picture and gain this tunnel vision towards higher profit and more power.

(I'm guessing in Bolsonaro's case, the coke helps too)

Where do you live, in the USA, or in some so-called third world country?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15035561
@Hindsite Where he lives is irrelevant. Are you trying to use that stupid argument on anyone who doesn't agree with you? Childishly typical of a person who can't argue any point, and so has to attack the person making the argument.

Ignore his question @Presvias. Hindsite is trolling, AGAIN.
#15035562
Godstud wrote:@Hindsite Where he lives is irrelevant. Are you trying to use that stupid argument on anyone who doesn't agree with you? Childishly typical of a person who can't argue any point, and so has to attack the person making the argument.

Ignore his question @Presvias. Hindsite is trolling, AGAIN.


It's seriously a bot, I'm telling you I've looked into the way they post; it's very sophisticated with learning mechanisms and the ability to adapt.

And it's got convincing life stories and stuff to boot; I noticed last time I made the accusation, it very cleverly didn't respond and started immediately dropping little spelling errors here and there, and came out with a convincing story about its daughter/apple pie, and flattering comments about a certain female member on here (to appear as 'human' as possible).

(shrug) IMHO it's a 100% cast iron bot.

Tbf though, where I live is far, far worse than any third world country. :lol:
#15035571
Presvias wrote:My claim is 'exactly what it says on the tin', one could say your relativistic claim is misleading vs my empirical one.

The US economy has been growing faster under Trump, so CO2 output should increase. However, CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP growth have been falling for decades.

Presvias wrote:Well that was stupid as fick, seeing as we all live on the same runcible planet.

Yes, but it was put in place by the Clinton-Gore administration, which is where when we started experiencing much more intense global warming propaganda. Al Gore wanted to outlaw the internal combustion engine in 2000. Yet, these people were fine with MFN status and WTO membership for China. That suggests that the people pushing the global warming agenda don't actually believe what they are telling you.

Presvias wrote:You tell me whether these are fake or not, I do not know.

"A retreat of glaciers has been noticed..." Nice use of passive voice. "...lands which the Vikings cultivated in Greenland and Iceland (which has been under ice for 1000 years) is bare again now." It was warmer well before the industrial revolution, and it's getting warmer now. What that means is that people will be able to grow crops in Greenland again.

Presvias wrote:That doesn't change the fact that emissions are going up since Stump got into power and that he supports idiots like Ballsack-Nero and others who would gladly burn the world. Oh and Strump is actually pro-global warming; he said it'd make for hotter summers. Him + his cognitively dissonant, sophist lemming herd are certainly suffering from brain damage from pollution, seeing as everytime they talk it adds methane, skatole etc..

Your own cited article suggests that warming occurred in cycles long before the Industrial Revolution. Further, the archaeological record does not suggest that the world was plagued with unusually harsh weather events at the time.
By Presvias
#15035572
Fair enough (you're referring to the lil ice age and medieval warm period right).

I find almost nothing to disagree with you on..
Good post. :)

I'd just say my view is this: Pollution/fixing the environment often but not always intersect; we should try a lot harder to help ourselves in these respects, even if it doesn't stop global warming - which as you say, it mightn't - we should still try - and certainly we want cleaner air, less other kinds of pollution by default right?
#15035606
I have cited evidence. In fact I did it in the previous post and the one before it. Your inability to read is noted.


Please provide a link to a source that supports your claims, and quote the relevant text.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15035609
blackjack21 wrote:They have done a lot, including outsourcing our most polluting industries to China where there aren't environmental controls of the kind we have in the US.


One could argue that it is well within the power of China to fix their pollution problem. It would be even easier for them to do that than it was for the US given the Authoritarian nature of that government.

Anyway, I'm sure you agree that it wasn't just outsourcing production that reduced pollution.
#15035614
Presvias wrote:I'd just say my view is this: Pollution/fixing the environment often but not always intersect; we should try a lot harder to help ourselves in these respects, even if it doesn't stop global warming - which as you say, it mightn't - we should still try - and certainly we want cleaner air, less other kinds of pollution by default right?

Yes, we should--to a point. However, the problem I have with the establishment is that they lie and exaggerate to the point where people distrust them. When I was a kid, they peddled an oncoming ice age as a result of particulates in the air. Was there an imminent ice age? No. However, they wanted to push a clean air act, and they did. Did they immediately switch to global warming? No. Then, they told us if we did not ban chlorofluorocarbons, the ozone layer would disappear, the Earth would flood with ultraviolet radiation, and all plant life followed by all animal life on Earth would perish. They got their legislation banning CFCs. Then, it was on to global warming. The problem with that was they weren't making the air cleaner, or taking away hairspray, they were selling a return to a pre-modern way of life. They also stopped making scientific sense. They opposed nuclear power, including all the efforts to make it safer such as pebble bed reactors, graphite moderation, different fuels such as Germanium or Thorium, breeder reactors, micro reactors, subterranean reactors, and so forth. So they developed an anti-science, anti-technology reputation with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) campaigns. Further, they later coupled this with the Clinton administration's "politics of personal destruction" and started trashing anyone who was skeptical of their program. What's worse is that they knew that the temperature trend reversed from declining to inclining, and decided to forecast higher temperatures. They were right about higher temperatures, but they constantly exaggerated to the point that all of their predictions have been wrong for over 30 years--all of the wrong predictions dramatically over-estimating warming. Further, all funding of science by the United States means the data is in the public domain and they are required to share it. Yet, it is often very difficult for any skeptic to obtain the data that is supposed to be available to the public for free, leading ironically to more skepticism. When hacked emails and server notes at HadCRU were released, it showed a very political and not very scientific initiative with data handling that was ramshackle to say the least. As I've said multiple times, a little kid's video game has more reliable and robust data handling.

Rancid wrote:One could argue that it is well within the power of China to fix their pollution problem. It would be even easier for them to do that than it was for the US given the Authoritarian nature of that government.

Well if this were a moral question, China sure was quick to cede the moral high ground and become the world's worst polluter at a time when our leaders were ever wise and understanding of the threat of global warming. Yet, China (and India) quickly abandoned bicycles and rickshaws for automobiles and the US was just as hasty at outsourcing factories subject to the clean air and clean water legislation to countries that had no such protections. So given the concomitant political dishonesty, it simply came to appear that they knew what they were doing was counter to their stated political problems and they continued to do it anyway making them appear hopelessly dishonest or almost impossibly unethical in pursuit of profits while condescending to the global population at large. It's not without reason that there are so many people skeptical of their prognostications, and the most compelling reason for skepticism is the behavior of the establishment itself.

Rancid wrote:Anyway, I'm sure you agree that it wasn't just outsourcing production that reduced pollution.

No. I think catalytic converters were among the biggest contributions along with particulate and sulfur scrubbers on coal plants. Sulfur dioxide used to be a pretty significant problem. It still is from time to time. Yet, that was another very counter-intuitive government move. East Coast coal sources are plentiful, but they are sulfur rich. In the west in places like Wyoming and Utah, you get much cleaner low sulfur coal, and the Clinton administration did their level best to ban it--even abusing national monument legislation to that end.

I've said similar things about the unrelated Americans with Disabilities Act. While I don't think there is a constitutional obligation to make provisions for the handicapped, I think providing incentives and tax credits to that end is a noble endeavor. Yet, Congress didn't stop there. They treated it as a civil right and created a whole new class of lawsuits for lawyers to make money. Again, it leads to very peculiar situations. For example, in high rise buildings--before you had to badge-in to the elevators--you'd have to have a code to get in to the bathrooms so that the homeless weren't ambling in to high rises to camp out in the boys room. Yet, you could easily defeat such provisions, because the ADA required handicapped access. If you don't know the bathroom code, you can just push the handicapped button and you not only get into the bathroom, the door will open automatically for you.

To me, the constant dishonesty, propaganda and personal attacks by political factions and their media apparatus has become intolerable to the point that making someone like Donald Trump president is preferable to anything they have to offer. They may find Donald Trump overbearing, tiresome and loathsome; yet, oddly they do not see that the general public has an even worse opinion of them--they seem almost oblivious to that fact.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15035616
Please provide a link to a source that supports your claims, and quote the relevant text.


Bite me. I cited very common laws and government agencies. It is a mere tactic of yours to ignore the obvious and ask your fellow debaters to document the obvious. I am not send you a picture to prove most people have ears.

Now your tactic will be to simply say, "so no evidence". Go ahead. It would be monumentally stupid of you to do it but that has never stopped you in the past.

If you are truly as ignorant as you claim to be I recommend you google search "Environmental Protection Agency" and read the literature on the subject. I a couple of years, when you have educated yourself on the obvious, you can come back and necropost your response. :moron:
User avatar
By Rancid
#15035617
blackjack21 wrote:Well if this were a moral question


The original points weren't on morals. I'm tired of this discussion so I'm not going to bother with morals right now.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 17
The Next UK PM everybody...

Are you forgetting that Farange said that he won'[…]

Ukrainegate

I wonder what is going to happen to Ciarmella? Wi[…]

The notion that using fossil fuels could "ge[…]

AOC is a rock star...

You double speak so much your gums must be blee[…]