[Julian658]

Ask her. It has nothing to do with our conversation.



So things like human rights make it less palatable?

Reducing carbon emissions and global warming has no relationship to social justice. They are two different topics. But, we know why SJWs are so keen on the climate. They see this as an opportunity to destroy capitalism and to implement socialism. That is why the right wingers are so doubtful. MOst would gladly live in a warmer earth than under the oppression and totalitarianism of socialism.

I thought you supported nuclear energy. Guess not.

That is a silly comment POD. I am 100% for Nuclear because it has ZERO emissions of carbon and in the long run cheaper.

Amd I thought you supported helping developing countries become stronger. Guess not.

You are practicing the typical condescending racism of the left that assumes non-whites are somehow weak and need the the white liberals to hold their hands and guide them. Iranians come from a very old civilization and are quite capable.

What is your plan for stopping anthropogenic climate change?

Nuclear
Solar panels in all newly built homes
Windmills wherever there is wind--even if some birds die.
Solar panel farms may require enormous land and damage the environment.
Promote electric cars
Have the USA develop a national train system to reduce flying in North America.
Allow the free market to take care of this.

Do you realize that making 3rd world countries into developed countries will increase their carbon emissions? Unless the West donates Nuclear Plants. Maybe the Cinese can do this--they are all over Africa

[Pants-of-dog]

Reducing carbon emissions and global warming has no relationship to social justice. They are two different topics. But, we know why SJWs are so keen on the climate. They see this as an opportunity to destroy capitalism and to implement socialism. That is why the right wingers are so doubtful. MOst would gladly live in a warmer earth than under the oppression and totalitarianism of socialism.

In your head, anyone who fights for social justice is also a Marxist and therefore also an authoritarian.

So climate change is just a smokescreen by marginalised groups to create a global totalitarian state.

Is that what you are now arguing?

That is a silly comment POD. I am 100% for Nuclear because it has ZERO emissions of carbon and in the long run cheaper.

...except when it comes to distribution of nuclear tech to the developing world.

...some misguided ad hominem....

So you do not support distribution of nuclear tech to the developing world. Got it.

Nuclear
Solar panels in all newly built homes
Windmills wherever there is wind--even if some birds die.
Solar panel farms may require enormous land and damage the environment.
Promote electric cars
Have the USA develop a national train system to reduce flying in North America.
Allow the free market to take care of this.

How will the free market take care of this?

Also, what is wrong with hydro-electric?

Do you realize that making 3rd world countries into developed countries will increase their carbon emissions? Unless the West donates Nuclear Plants. Maybe the Cinese can do this--they are all over Africa

You have already said that you fo not want the West giving them nukes.

I have no problem with China giving nuclear tech to the entire developing world.

[Hindsite]

POD, you were doing so well! What happened?

POD just reverted back to his real self.

[jimjam]

As 11,000 scientists recently explained in an article for the journal BioScience: “The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity.”

[Julian658]

In your head, anyone who fights for social justice is also a Marxist and therefore also an authoritarian.

Straw man arguments are poor form. I do not mind a person that wants to help the poor in an honorable manner rather than socialism. Giving free fish to the poor does not fix the problem of poverty. It is best to teach the poor how to fish.

So climate change is just a smokescreen by marginalised groups to create a global totalitarian state.

Is that what you are now arguing?

Another strawman.

I said: For AOC climate change is a tool to bring socialism through the backdoor. She is a true SJW that is possessed by the ideology of socialism.

How will the free market take care of this?

The best solutions are often provided by the free market.

Also, what is wrong with hydro-electric?

Nothing, forgot to list that one.

I have no problem with China giving nuclear tech to the entire developing world.

China is the new colonial power in Africa. They are there for their own interest. They do not care about Africans.

[Pants-of-dog]

Straw man arguments are poor form. I do not mind a person that wants to help the poor in an honorable manner rather than socialism. Giving free fish to the poor does not fix the problem of poverty. It is best to teach the poor how to fish.



Another strawman.

I said: For AOC climate change is a tool to bring socialism through the backdoor. She is a true SJW that is possessed by the ideology of socialism.

This is still all very unclear.

And since it seems like an ad hominem based on wildly incorrect ideas about Marxism and social justice, I will simply ignore it.

The best solutions are often provided by the free market.

No, that is not true.

Now answer the question as to how the free market will solve climate change.

Go ahead.

China is the new colonial power in Africa. They are there for their own interest. They do not care about Africans.

And that is the nice thing about giving developing countries nuclear tech: developing countries can then protect their own interests.

If you think China is bad because they do not care about Africans, you must care about Africans because you are a good person. And since you care about Africans, you want them to be able to defend themselves, right?

[Julian658]

This is still all very unclear.

And since it seems like an ad hominem based on wildly incorrect ideas about Marxism and social justice, I will simply ignore it.

Marx was correct in his analysis of capitalism. His ideas are very compelling for the young in every generation. Marx really tells a good sound story. However, the solution; socialism, does not work. It has never worked anywhere in the world. Furthermore, socialism is always attached to an authoritarian state. You cannot have socialism without oppression of those that wish to pursue the free market.

Now answer the question as to how the free market will solve climate change.

Once there is the promise of a profit the free market will solve the problem. The state will fail very badly in this endeavor. I foresee an economic boom with massive demands for electric cars, trains, and renewable energy. This will take time and cannot happen under coercion by the government.

And that is the nice thing about giving developing countries nuclear tech: developing countries can then protect their own interests.

I have to agree with you here POD. That may be better than having the 3rd world migrate to western capitalist nations.

If you think China is bad because they do not care about Africans, you must care about Africans because you are a good person. And since you care about Africans, you want them to be able to defend themselves, right?

POD: Stop stramanning.

[Pants-of-dog]

Once there is the promise of a profit the free market will solve the problem. The state will fail very badly in this endeavor. I foresee an economic boom with massive demands for electric cars, trains, and renewable energy. This will take time and cannot happen under coercion by the government.

So you have no realistic or practical idea as to how the free market will solve the problem of climate change.

I have to agree with you here POD. That may be better than having the 3rd world migrate to western capitalist nations.

Climate change will almost certainly create more migration from the global south.

[jimjam]

For decades, most scientists saw climate change as a distant prospect. We now know that thinking was wrong. This summer, for instance, a heat wave in Europe penetrated the Arctic, pushing temperatures into the 80s across much of the Far North and, according to the Belgian climate scientist Xavier Fettweis, melting some 40 billion tons of Greenland’s ice sheet.

Had a scientist in the early 1990s suggested that within 25 years a single heat wave would measurably raise sea levels, at an estimated two one-hundredths of an inch, bake the Arctic and produce Sahara-like temperatures in Paris and Berlin, the prediction would have been dismissed as alarmist. But many worst-case scenarios from that time are now realities.

As the seas rise, they are also warming at a pace unanticipated as recently as five years ago. This is very bad news. For one thing, a warmer ocean means more powerful storms, and die-offs of marine life, but it also suggests that the planet is more sensitive to increased carbon dioxide emissions than previously thought.

For all of the missed predictions, changes in the weather are confirming earlier expectations that a warming globe would be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather. And there are new findings unforeseen by early studies, such as the extremely rapid intensification of storms, as on Sept. 1, when Hurricane Dorian’s sustained winds intensified from 150 to 185 miles per hour in just nine hours, and last year when Hurricane Michael grew from tropical depression to major hurricane in just two days.

Even if scientists end up having lowballed their latest assessments of the consequences of the greenhouse gases we continue to emit into the atmosphere, their predictions are dire enough. But the Trump administration has made its posture toward climate change abundantly clear: Bring it on!

It’s already here. And it is going to get worse. A lot worse.

[blackjack21]

melting some 40 billion tons of Greenland’s ice sheet.

Oh no! You mean Greenland might become green again like in Erik the Red's time?

For one thing, a warmer ocean means more powerful storms, and die-offs of marine life, but it also suggests that the planet is more sensitive to increased carbon dioxide emissions than previously thought.

Increased Co2 leading to increased temperature is a linear assertion. We're not seeing linear results.

For all of the missed predictions, changes in the weather are confirming earlier expectations that a warming globe would be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather.

The fossil record doesn't support this. It supports more tropic-like conditions.

And it is going to get worse. A lot worse.

Oh no. Maybe we should stop trading with China...

[jimjam]

Oh no! You mean Greenland might become green again like in Erik the Red's time?


Increased Co2 leading to increased temperature is a linear assertion. We're not seeing linear results.


The fossil record doesn't support this. It supports more tropic-like conditions.


Oh no. Maybe we should stop trading with China...

I wonder how stupid shit comes out of a smart brain. I guess even smart brains crease to function effectively after a few years of Rush, Sean and, of course His Highness ……….. Donald ………..

[BeesKnee5]

Increased Co2 leading to increased temperature is a linear assertion. We're not seeing linear results.

The planet has natural variations in its climate, the most famous being el Niño.
What is seen is a direct correllation once those factors are removed.

The argument that we don't see linear results is false, we see the linear results overlaid on natural changes.

The fossil record doesn't support this. It supports more tropic-like conditions.

Both can be true, an expansion of tropic like conditions with a more energetic atmosphere.

[Julian658]

For decades, most scientists saw climate change as a distant prospect. We now know that thinking was wrong. This summer, for instance, a heat wave in Europe penetrated the Arctic, pushing temperatures into the 80s across much of the Far North and, according to the Belgian climate scientist Xavier Fettweis, melting some 40 billion tons of Greenland’s ice sheet.

Had a scientist in the early 1990s suggested that within 25 years a single heat wave would measurably raise sea levels, at an estimated two one-hundredths of an inch, bake the Arctic and produce Sahara-like temperatures in Paris and Berlin, the prediction would have been dismissed as alarmist. But many worst-case scenarios from that time are now realities.

As the seas rise, they are also warming at a pace unanticipated as recently as five years ago. This is very bad news. For one thing, a warmer ocean means more powerful storms, and die-offs of marine life, but it also suggests that the planet is more sensitive to increased carbon dioxide emissions than previously thought.

For all of the missed predictions, changes in the weather are confirming earlier expectations that a warming globe would be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather. And there are new findings unforeseen by early studies, such as the extremely rapid intensification of storms, as on Sept. 1, when Hurricane Dorian’s sustained winds intensified from 150 to 185 miles per hour in just nine hours, and last year when Hurricane Michael grew from tropical depression to major hurricane in just two days.

Even if scientists end up having lowballed their latest assessments of the consequences of the greenhouse gases we continue to emit into the atmosphere, their predictions are dire enough. But the Trump administration has made its posture toward climate change abundantly clear: Bring it on!

It’s already here. And it is going to get worse. A lot worse.

Something like that is what Paul R. Ehrlich and others said in the 1970s. They predicted famine and death by the 1990s. They were dead wrong.

The other problem is separating science from politics. Academia is now a system that demands orthodoxy and the consequences of deviation from orthodoxy are lethal.

Nevertheless, we should explore and develop zero carbon emission systems such as nuclear. However, I believe the climate has never been static.

The other problem with climate change fanatics is that they want to use climate change as an excuse to implement socialism. It is not so much climate change denial, some in the right fear socialism very badly.

[Hindsite]

Something like that is what Paul R. Ehrlich and others said in the 1970s. They predicted famine and death by the 1990s. They were dead wrong.

The other problem is separating science from politics. Academia is now a system that demands orthodoxy and the consequences of deviation form orthodoxy are lethal.

Nevertheless, we should explore and develop zero carbon emission systems such as nuclear. However, I believe the climate has never been static.

The other problem with climate change fanatics is that they want to use climate change as an excuse to implement socialism. It is not so much climate change denial, some in the right fear socialism very badly.

I agree. Socialism for the USA would be terrible.

[Pants-of-dog]

Something like that is what Paul R. Ehrlich and others said in the 1970s. They predicted famine and death by the 1990s. They were dead wrong.

And?

Are you arguing that since this one man was wrong decades ago that all of climate science is therefore also wrong?

The other problem is separating science from politics. Academia is now a system that demands orthodoxy and the consequences of deviation form orthodoxy are lethal.

You are using the word “lethal” in a metaphorical sense, I assume. Or are you arguing that climatologists who do not play along with the hoax are killed by their tenured colleagues?

Now, unless you have evidence to support this claim of groupthink (and I will predict that you will supply none), this is merely an unsupported ad hominem.

Nevertheless, we should explore and develop zero carbon emission systems such as nuclear. However, I believe the climate has never been static.

No one argued that climate was static.

The other problem with climate change fanatics is that they want to use climate change as an excuse to implement socialism. It is not so much climate change denial, some in the right fear socialism very badly.

I would love for this to be true.

As a socialist, I see how capitalism is part of the problem and it would be great if capitalism were to fall in the process of solving climate change,

But the vast majority of people who want a solution to anthropogenic climate change are not socialists.

[Julian658]

And?

As a socialist, I see how capitalism is part of the problem and it would be great if capitalism were to fall in the process of solving climate change,

THE SMOKING GUN

Thanks for proving my point!

[Pants-of-dog]

@Julian658

Your point is irrelevant.

Even if I want to use climate change as a way to implement socialism, that does not make me wrong or make anthropogenic climate change any less of a problem.

[Julian658]

@Julian658

Your point is irrelevant.

Even if I want to use climate change as a way to implement socialism, that does not make me wrong or make anthropogenic climate change any less of a problem.

Sure!!!!!

You are the clone of AOC. You have lost all credibility because you have a nefarious agenda.

[Pants-of-dog]

No.

People’s arguments are no less valid because you disagree with their motives.

If a capitalist argued that we should cure cancer because he would make more money if people did not die of cancer, would he be wrong to say we should cure cancer?

[BeesKnee5]

In hear those social democracies in Scandinavia are dreadful.

I mean what idiotic country would ensure capitalism works for all its people by having a guaranteed housing policy.