I'm going to reply to each part separately. All the parts come from one post.
Sivad wrote: You don't even know what the debate is over. Nobody denies the world is warming or that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have impacted the climate.
I call BS. I see many people deny both the warming and that humans have caused it. For example, very recently I posted a reply about a female paid shrill of the Enterprise Institute who said on 'Face the Nation', "... the last 2 years were the coldest since the 80s..." In fact those years were among the 4 or 5 hottest ever.
I find people like you who don't know anything about the science or the controversy rather interesting. What exactly are your opinions based on?
I don't know about his, but my opinions are based on youtube videos and my back ground education in college with a year of Physics and a year of Chemistry and 5 years of Material Engineering credits, etc.
The official pronouncements of a demonstrably compromised and captured institution?
Which institution is this? The IPCC or the 13 agencies of the Federal Gov.? Despite claims that the report that 97% of climate scientists [not plain scientists] believe that AGW is real and humans are the main cause has been debunked; it has not been convincingly debunked. Also, 99% of peer reviewed published scientific reports say AGW is real. Just a very few say the opposite. Also, scientific papers are conservative, in that they stick to what can be proved and don't say what the scientists really think is actually going to happen. Recent papers are saying that the warming is happening faster than they predicted, not slower.
. . If the institution that you are referring to is the mass of climate scientists, then I question your assertion. Do you have any proof or even evidence? Are you relying on assertions by authorities that you trust?
. . . . . I find this laughable. Show me the money that has corrupted the scientists of every nation on earth. It isn't just US or 'Western' scientists you know. It is all scientists. If for exmaple, Indian scientists all agreed with you, I'm sure you can find evidence of this. Or all Arab scientists. Or all Chinese scientists. Etc., etc.
How is that any different from religious fundamentalism? It's the same exact psychology, it's the very same psychology that has allowed the few to dominate the many for the last 10,000 years of human history. It's the same dynamic, a duplicitous priesthood posing as authorities to the credulous and fearful masses and promising security and assurance in exchange for faith and obedience.
It is different because it is based on science. The claim is that if you invest the time to learn the science you will understand how the reported results are based on reproducible experiments or computer projections. In religion, there can be no such claim. The best they can say is that if you accept the assumption that the book (Bible) is true, and you study the argument then you will see how the argument follows from what the book says. But, it starts from the assumption that the book is true.
All I can tell you alarmists is that you better come up with something better than babbittry if you ever want to get any real traction on this issue.
Sivad, as I see it, you are scared that you will lose something that you value in the now. And therefore, you resist the facts. You don't want massive tax increases to hit you.
OK, fine. I get that. That is why I propose the you investigate MMT. Most of the new spending in the US can be financed with deficit spending. The same deficit spending that was used recently to allow the Trump tax cuts and military spending increases.
. . You may claim that you don't like those either. And yet, they are the current reality. You are scared that the shit will soon hit the fan. You ignore that this claim has been made for the last 70 years by some economists and that it has NOT happened yet.
. . You are more scared of the financial crash that might happen based on a science that has been wrong for the last 70 years; than you are scared of the climate "crash" that is based on real science, science that has a proven record of being right. Certainly more right than economics has been so far.
. . I assert that if you spent 20 hours of your time reading about MMT with an open mind, you would see the light. The 2 key points are --- 1] The Gov. is not like a family or a company because it can always pay its bills, by borrowing or just creating dollars. And, 2] That the Gov. has had a national debt for the last 142 years and so far this has not caused even one real problem. It causes problems in some people's minds, but it is private debt that has caused all the real problems [and OPEC raising the price of oil for a while].
. . If you disagree with my assertion that the national debt has not caused one real problem, please be kind enough to point it out to me here and now.