Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: steve austin
Post Volume: Total: 918,261 Year: 5,518/9,624 Month: 543/323 Week: 40/143 Day: 2/11 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Winter: Baby, It's Cold Outside!
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 13 of 188 (904305)
12-26-2022 9:45 PM


Midwest unprepared
Anytime there is a widespread occurrence of extreme heat or cold, human suffering and lack of preparation for it is common, often because the weather event happens quickly without much warning. That could have been true this time in places like Buffalo NY, I'm not sure, but this time it wasn't true in midwestern U.S. The meteorologists saw this coming about a week in advance, and plenty of weather forecasts both locally and nationally provided warnings about it. News reports over the past weekend and undoubtedly through this week will show countless examples of needless suffering, deaths, and monetary costs, from things like unnecessary travel, flooded buildings from burst water pipes, power outages, etc.
Why wasn't the midwest better prepared? Could it be that the drumbeat of global warming / climate change has at least subconsciously caused the public to somewhat discard the possibility of extreme cold?
Climate change and global warming are supposedly two completely different things. But that's not how the general public sees it, and there's a reason for it.
Here's how the nasa.gov website describes it;
quote:
The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?
Whats in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change | Precipitation Education
This web page goes on to explain why, and most would consider it to be a good explanation, but some more cuts from their explanation show some human imperfection, that can easily be linked to politics.
quote:
But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."4 Hansen's testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media.
(bolded mine) It didn't "explode" only within the scientific community, it exploded throughout the popular media largely because it was a political scare tactic. And of course, it went along with Al Gore's political book, "Earth in the Balance".
quote:
But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.
And Democrats and the mainstream media chose to emphasize global warming a few decades ago for political purposes, and they made a pretty abrupt switch to climate change, now using it for the exact same political purposes.
So no matter how different the two terms are, the general public makes little distinction between them. And it's not their fault, it's the way the terms have been politically presented to them. So they are, at least subconsciously, if not consciously in some cases, not as likely to be prepared for, or take heed of, warnings of COLD weather. Both the public, and those in charge of public utilities and emergency services.
I saw news footage of abandoned, snowed in cars being moved by forklifts, which seriously damages the undersides of $40,000 / $50,000 cars. Water pouring out of windows and doors of buildings with busted water pipes. What was the cost of this unpreparedness? Milllions? Billions?
Democrats aren't to blame? Then call me tons of vulgar names, it'll be fun.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 12-26-2022 10:02 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 12-26-2022 10:17 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 12-26-2022 10:34 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 12-26-2022 10:43 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 12-27-2022 10:46 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 19 of 188 (904373)
12-27-2022 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rahvin
12-26-2022 10:02 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
So let me get this straight.

You apparently agree on some basic facts:

- scientists note that the average temperature of the Earth is rising.
So far, so good. But some scientists without a political agenda also note that the temperature of the earth rose even more 1000 years ago, and other periods much earlier than that, when the earth's population was a small fraction of what it is today, and no fossil fuel was being used.
Our world was hotter 1,000 years ago
This is projected to eventually cause massive ecological disaster, including increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, concentrated areas of drought and floods, superstorms, and other not-good things for life on Earth in general, and human society specifically.
"This is projected" yes, by some scientists and some politicians with a political agenda. Fear sells.
- scientists talk about global warming, trying to warn the population while there is still time to change course. A shift away from the fossil fuels and similar measures are needed to stop the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses and keep the climate relatively unchanged. This was noticed many decades before it would be too late.
Yes, some scientists still talk about "global warming", not realizing that the terminology has changed. Chances are some of them haven't bothered to learn the difference between climate change and global warming, as defined by that government website that I linked.
- "global warming" enters the common popular vernacular. However, because the dramatic effects at this point were still in the future, and because of strong economic incentive to downplay it or pretend it didnt exist, people tended to disregard it.
That could be, but the main reason they disregarded it is because they don't believe humans can control the weather or planet temperature, no matter what they do or discontinue doing.
- Conservatives, mostly led by the petrochemical companies that stand to lose profit as the world reduces reliance on fossil fuels, engage in full-throated denial which continues today.
Conservatives tend avoid demonizing companies that make useful products that the public willingly buys in free markets. They're not jealous of them. They don't hate them.
- As time went on, scientists noted that "global warming" was not the best term, even though it's accurate at a global scale. It implies a uniform warming of the planet, which is not what actually happens. A shift to the term "climate change" begins.
That's not exactly what the government link that I shared with you above said. Apparently there are several explanations of why the terms changed. But all the explanations motives can be reduced down to one thing - politics.
- Now in late 2022, we are experiencing more frequent and more extreme weather events, as predicted by climate change.
More than when? Are new records being set? I haven't noticed the mainstream media trumpeting that. And it's certain they would if they could. A lot of records were set before fossil fuels were being used to anywhere near the extent they are today.
You are now asserting that somehow Democrats are to blame for inaction on climate change, because they said it was going to get warmer and the Midwest is currently facing a very cold extreme weather event, as predicted all along? Because of the "global warming" term?

Do I have that right?
No. Your phrase "inaction on climate change" isn't an accurate description of what I said. Inaction on climate change is what Republicans are constantly accused of, while ACTION on climate change (destroying / taking control of free markets, and/or the stripping of money and freedoms from the public to dispel their fears of WARMING) is what Democrats long to do. By invoking fear of warming it tends to cause the public to disregard a fear of very temporary, yet very dangerous COLD.
The Democrats, for all their many flaws, who have been at least talking about climate change and moving away from fossil fuels, the things that would actually help mitigate these extreme weather events, are the ones responsible for a Midwest blizzard? Not the Republicans?
It's not possible to politically move away from fossil fuels, the world runs on them, and there are no alternatives that come close. Solar and wind are in their infancy, and it's very questionable if they'll ever move beyond that. Their fragility was made clear in Texas less than two years ago. I never said Democrats were responsible for the blizzard, I said they shared in some responsibility for the lack of preparation to deal with it.
The Democrats are at fault for trying to turn off the doomsday device because the public was too stupid to listen past the two-word name they used for it, and the Republicans who were shooing away every attempt to disarm the doomsday device bear no mention?
Non-atheists don't believe humans have the capacity to "turn off", or "disarm" anything involving weather, global temperatures, or any weather events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 12-26-2022 10:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 12-28-2022 10:46 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 26 by Theodoric, posted 12-28-2022 11:04 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 20 of 188 (904374)
12-27-2022 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by nwr
12-26-2022 10:43 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
I'm in the midwest. It seems to me that we were pretty well prepared.
I'm in the midwest too. I've been watching the news.
Some people ignore the warnings. Are you suggesting that we should become a police state, and force everybody to obey the warnings?
No, I'm suggesting we don't try to scare them about new, record warmth, and threaten their freedoms with the false hope that government can mandate action that would avoid it.
It seems more likely that the drumbeat of right wing denialist propaganda may have caused some people to ignore the warnings.
That doesn't make sense. Republican opposition to government meddling in taxing, freedoms, and free markets would cause people to avoid warnings?
marc9000 writes:
Climate change and global warming are supposedly two completely different things.

Who is dumb enough to suppose that?
Uh, the scientists who wrote that non-partisan link that I referred to above? (I love this place)
Oh, I guess that right wing extremists such as marc9000 might be foolish enough to make that mistake.
quote:
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
EVERYTHING ELSE, and it's a lot. Global warming involves warming, climate change involves warming, cooling, unusual cold blasts from the arctic, hurricanes, tornados, floods, rising seas, falling seas, melting ice. I'm not sure yet if it includes earthquakes, aggressive behaviors of animals, the sexual drives of fish , increased drug use by the homeless, riots by liberals and tons of other things, but I'm sure if there's a way to do that, it will be done by Democrats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 12-26-2022 10:43 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 12-27-2022 9:38 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 12-28-2022 10:35 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 21 of 188 (904375)
12-27-2022 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taq
12-27-2022 10:46 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
And Democrats and the mainstream media chose to emphasize global warming a few decades ago for political purposes, and they made a pretty abrupt switch to climate change, now using it for the exact same political purposes.

What purpose is that?
I love easy questions. To attack free markets, to increase the size and scope of government. The only two things Democrat politicians and rich mainstream media anchors care about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 12-27-2022 10:46 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Taq, posted 12-28-2022 10:32 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 28 of 188 (904397)
12-28-2022 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nwr
12-27-2022 9:38 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
You have misunderstood what they say. Both terms have been used to refer to the affects of increased greenhouse gases.
A lot of people misunderstand liberal scare tactics. A lot of people don't immediately understand how warming can mean cooling. That was part of the reason for the lack of preparedness for the cold wave. That was the reason for my entering this thread and getting called names. The fact that liberal propaganda really can do damage. Hopefully the president of Southwest airlines learned something. Or people trying to drive to grandma's house and getting their buried car destroyed by a forklift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 12-27-2022 9:38 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 12-28-2022 9:22 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 12-30-2022 11:29 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 29 of 188 (904398)
12-28-2022 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taq
12-28-2022 10:35 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels? Why won't this help?
Fossil fuels are voluntarily purchased by people who desire to have them. What kind of laws would you suggest? Who should make them? Your starting point would be, of course, to eliminate any law that threatens YOUR lifestyle, right? If we ever get these laws, they will of course be implemented by politicians, and many politicians have private jets. Private jets are one of the biggest fossil fuel hogs on the planet, but they're immediately out of the discussion, right? Other fossil fuel hogs are Carribean cruise ships. What are the chances that cruise ship company presidents have friends in the Democrat party, and contribute to their campaigns? I could go on and on.
What is your suggestion for fossil fuel regulation laws that would keep them from becoming rampantly corrupt?
marc9000 writes:
Republican opposition to government meddling in taxing, freedoms, and free markets would cause people to avoid warnings?

Republicans meddle in all those things.
In what ways do Republicans meddle in those things?
It involves trapping more heat in the atmosphere due to our use of fossil fuels. This can and does result in more extreme weather as there is more energy in the system. It's not that hard to figure out.
What's hard to figure out is how to keep widespread corruption out of fossil fuel laws, and how to determine progress on the good that fossil fuel laws would provide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 12-28-2022 10:35 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 12-30-2022 11:24 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 31 of 188 (904400)
12-28-2022 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taq
12-28-2022 10:46 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Here is the actual change in global temps:
The earth's population has risen significantly, which correlates pretty well with these charts that show rising temperatures. Why do we blame fossil fuels for what increased population is causing? Increased population uses more fossil fuels naturally. To eat and keep warm. Should we not permit today's population to do that?
Some people don't believe the Earth is round. Reality has this strange way of not caring what we believe.
Your dream that humans have the power to change back the temperature of the planet that you believe they caused to rise in the first place isn't reality.
The fact is that we are changing the climate due to our production of greenhouse gases.
Due to 8 billion people selfishly desiring to eat and keep warm. Who should be denied the ability to do this?
You don't have to be jealous or hateful to understand what the consequences are of burning fossil fuels. Again, you are dreaming up fantasies.
What are the consequences of NOT using fossil fuels, when there are, as of yet, no alternatives?
marc9000 writes:
More than when? Are new records being set? I haven't noticed the mainstream media trumpeting that. And it's certain they would if they could. A lot of records were set before fossil fuels were being used to anywhere near the extent they are today.

Proclaiming your ignorance does nothing to change reality.
You have a strange way of conceding points. So you can't name any new specific records being set? Not your copy/pasted charts, but actual temperature records.
marc9000 writes:
...ACTION on climate change (destroying / taking control of free markets, and/or the stripping of money and freedoms from the public to dispel their fears of WARMING) is what Democrats long to do.

Examples?
You provided one example.
quote:
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels?
Laws to prohibit some people, (people with no political influence) from buying a product that they want / need. Here's another;
Repairing Your Car in Your Own Garage Is Considered Illegal in Sacramento, California
Ever sit in an auto emissions testing line? The worst polluting car in the world, that its owner was denied the use of to feed his family, didn't put out a fraction of carbon emissions as does John Kerry's private jet.
Fission comes to mind. 80% of the electricity in France is produced by nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power? The power source that Democrats have fought tooth and nail against for decades?
They don't seem to believe in basic physics, either. Again, why do you think beliefs will change reality?
Again, it's not reality to believe that human tyrants can reverse rising temperatures of the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 12-28-2022 10:46 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 12-29-2022 11:07 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 32 of 188 (904401)
12-28-2022 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by nwr
12-28-2022 9:22 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Right wingers are the primary users of scare tactics.
What scare tactics are those? The threats that tyrants can impose, with history loaded with examples?
Nevertheless, refrigerators produce heat.
When does heat produce cold?
marc9000 writes:
That was part of the reason for the lack of preparedness for the cold wave.

Do you have any actual evidence to support this claim? Or are you just making it up as one of your own political scare tactics?
You would have to have watched the news, I can't recap it all for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 12-28-2022 9:22 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 12-28-2022 10:25 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 12-29-2022 7:26 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 12-29-2022 11:42 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(2)
Message 38 of 188 (904433)
12-29-2022 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Taq
12-29-2022 11:07 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
The earth's population has risen significantly, which correlates pretty well with these charts that show rising temperatures. Why do we blame fossil fuels for what increased population is causing?

People aren't greenhouse gases, last I checked. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. People are burning fossil fuels, and guess what that produces? Carbon dioxide.
People aren't greenhouse gases, correct, but the more people there are in existence, the more fossil fuels have be burnt to basically sustain their lives. Also, people exhale carbon dioxide.
His rough calculations predicted a 4C increase in global temps for each doubling of carbon dioxide concentration. We are almost at a 50% increase, and Arrhenius' calculations have been improved since the late 19th century.
I realize the existence of all these scientific talking points. But not once was the word "laws" mentioned. I don't have time to read your links, but if the word "laws" is in there anywhere, direct me to that specific content and we'll discuss it.
marc9000 writes:
Your dream that humans have the power to change back the temperature of the planet that you believe they caused to rise in the first place isn't reality.

It's a reality. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Humans are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere. That captures more heat. It's just a fact.
The words "carbon dioxide" or "greenhouse gas" weren't in my above statement. The phrase "power to change" were the key words. That's POLITICS, not reality.
I'm not saying they should be denied the ability to eat and keep warm. The obvious solution is to find alternate energy sources that are affordable and dependable.
Free markets can do that, laws cannot. Alternate energy sources are nowhere near ready yet. We can't discontinue fossil fuels until new sources are found, and proven. 2 years ago, Texas didn't have them proven well enough, and paid a big price.
There are alternatives. Fission for one.
Oil is a substance. It's a lubricant, it's needed in the manufacture of rubber and plastic products, and has many other uses, it's not only burned for energy. Nuclear and fission and all of that are just energy, not physical substances.
Yes. We have new records for carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. New records for global temps. Do you deny these?
I was thinking more of local records. Temps in the U.S. They're more realistic and verifiable by the public, than are global temperatures claimed by a special interest.
I am not the one claiming Democrats are trying to take control of all these things. That is your claim.
Sorry, it really is your claim. Here is your quote;
quote:
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels? Why won't this help?
I responded like this;
quote:
What kind of laws would you suggest?
and;
quote:
What is your suggestion for fossil fuel regulation laws that would keep them from becoming rampantly corrupt?
No response from you.
quote:
HEADLINE; Repairing Your Car in Your Own Garage Is Considered Illegal in Sacramento, California

​That has nothing to do with fossil fuels.
But it has something to do with LAWS.
marc9000 writes:
Ever sit in an auto emissions testing line? The worst polluting car in the world, that its owner was denied the use of to feed his family, didn't put out a fraction of carbon emissions as does John Kerry's private jet.

That's about air pollution, not fossil fuel use.
Cars burn fossil fuel, which emit carbon dioxide. Air pollution consists largely of carbon dioxide. Same with jets.
marc9000 writes:
Nuclear power? The power source that Democrats have fought tooth and nail against for decades?

If Democrats are against it you should be all for it, right? How is fission power not an alternative?
I am for it, always have been. Fission power isn't a complete alternative, because it's not a substance, it can't lubricate, plastics and rubber products can't be manufactured with it.
marc9000 writes:
Again, it's not reality to believe that human tyrants can reverse rising temperatures of the planet.

Sorry, but facts demonstrate otherwise.
The term "fact" doesn't apply to future reversals, especially political projections.
Fossil fuels are used for a wide variety of purposes. If climate change alarmism was anything more than a power grab by one political party, the way to analyze it and deal with would have gone down a much different path decades ago. If fossil fuel use must be reduced, the common sense thing to have started on decades ago would have been to catagorize its different uses. Two main catagories, with probably dozens of sub-catagories. The main two; ESSENTIAL versus NON-ESSENTIAL, or RECREATIONAL. It should have been discussed and reported publicly, with local politics, news reports, and polls. It would have taken years, and there would never be a perfect consensus on it of course, but a lot could be learned. For all we know it could have happened or be happening behind closed doors, by politicians and high level business owners, many of whom would own private jets. The reason I say the public should be involved is because while executives could believe that private jets are very essential, the public might not have that same opinion. Isn't democracy important to Democrats? Here are a very few examples;
ESSENTIAL;
*Fuel for tractor trailers that haul food.
*Fuel for farm equipment
*Fuel to heat buildings
*Fuel to build and repair roads
*Oil that's required to make all kinds of plastic products, rubber products, building materials.
*Oil for mining machinery fuels
Barely scratching the surface, but you get the idea. Now for
NON-ESSENTIAL;
*Pleasure boats, from the biggest cruise ships to the tiniest fishing boats
*All forms of auto racing
*All forms of transportation to sporting events
*Oil that's required for the manufacture of non-essential items, toys, sporting goods, the making of movies and entertainment shows.
Again, the tiniest of starts, but when you talk about laws, wouldn't picking and choosing very carefully from the fossil fuel use varieties, and making laws against only what would be deemed non-essential for the most people make logical sense?
Non-essential fossil fuel use is probably at an all time high in this day and age, considering the ever increasing population, and ever increasing number of toys and gadgets that use it.
Why do you suppose studies like this have never been done, or at least never been made public? I suppose they never have because climate change alarmists like recreational use of fossil fuels as much as anyone, and don't plan to have laws made against what they like. Climate change is ALWAYS about finger pointing.
I'll have more to say following your next response. But if you don't address the "law" idea that YOU brought up, then we're about finished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 12-29-2022 11:07 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 12-29-2022 11:45 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 43 by Taq, posted 12-30-2022 11:04 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 46 by xongsmith, posted 12-30-2022 4:25 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 47 of 188 (904563)
01-01-2023 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nwr
12-28-2022 10:25 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
I'll take that as an admission that you do not have actual evidence.
I don't have actual evidence, no. But I do have a suspicion. There's no law (yet) from prohibiting people to have a suspicion about something, and sharing it with others, as an inspiration for thought. Suspicion is somewhat synonymous with mis-trust. If you've ever read the Bill of Rights, you might notice mis-trust there. As one example, if the German people would have been suspicious of Hitlers actions in the early and mid-1930's, they could have saved themselves a lot of misery 10 years later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 12-28-2022 10:25 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 48 of 188 (904564)
01-01-2023 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dwise1
12-30-2022 3:14 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Bob Altemeyer constructed a Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) spectrum with sets of survey questions to place an individual on that scale. Also, "right wing" has nothing to do with politics, since even an extreme left-wing mentality could score high on the RWA scale.
Couldn't you summarize it, condense it, and post it here rather than just saying to read an entire book? How long is the set of survey questions, couldn't you show us? Is the book only about Trump and January 6th? Does it contain an LWA spectrum also? Complete with questions about gun control? About the Green New Deal? About teachers unions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2022 3:14 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2023 7:20 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 49 of 188 (904565)
01-01-2023 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
12-30-2022 1:33 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
It seems to me that he is calling out a Democratic government for passing laws for the all-inclusive "good of the people." In short, an authoritarian government.
Yes, it was Taq who brought up "laws". I wanted more clarification of what laws they were talking about. He responded to that with this;
quote:
You have just proven you are an idiot. What laws are you yammering about?
I suspect he was already bombed on his ass a full day before New Years eve. Who knows what kind of shape he's in now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 12-30-2022 1:33 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 50 of 188 (904566)
01-01-2023 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
12-30-2022 11:24 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
What kind of laws would you suggest?Legislators have already suggested them, already debated them and already passed them.
EXAMPLES? So climate change laws have been passed, and our troubles are over?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 12-30-2022 11:24 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 01-02-2023 11:22 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 51 of 188 (904567)
01-01-2023 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by xongsmith
12-30-2022 4:25 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
WHAT!!! so now decades of NASA data from satellites is a "special interest"?
Nasa is a special interest. It absorbs billions from the federal government each year. It also accepts donations. It's one of many special interests that can increase its cash flow using climate change hysteria.
Why is your small intake valve focused only on the U.S.?
Because that's where I live, currently the biggest threat to the U.S. way of life is from within - the Democrat party. And it's $31+ trillion in debt.
Have you checked the more realistic and verifiable size of the USA on a globe lately? I bet you might even think eye-witness testimony is the best kind of evidence of these public local records.
?? Could you repeat that in English?
Taq writes:
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels? Why won't this help?
xongsmith writes:
I do NOT see the Democrats in that quote.
Not in gun control? Not in the Green New Deal?
ok, so then later you do get to the part i can somewhat agree with:
boy, that last item sure brings out the Grinch in you, doesn't it?
I never said that last item should be eliminated. If that list I made was way longer, it would always point out the same thing; that today's use of fossil fuels can't be switched off, or cut back in any meaningful way. Even the most non-essential fossil fuel use cut back would result in a public outcry, and a political jolt that no politician would want to see. I saw somewhere on the net the other night at a pro fission site that even if that kind of energy took off right now, it would be too little too late to stop climate change. Most of the mandates in the Green New Deal aren't going to happen. Everyone knows it, so why is climate change sensationalized in the news so much, if nothing meaningful can be done?
The answer is, even if nothing meaningful can be done, there is always a FEEL GOOD measure that can be done. The idea is to target a very minority interest, one without much political ramification. It helps a lot if there's some jealousy of that minority interest.
Every time there is a mass shooting that makes major news, the Democrat outcry is always the same, more gun control. Just one more law, one more step. It won't do anything to stop the next nutcase from getting a gun of course, but it makes some people feel good. "Something must be done!!" is always the Democrat battle cry. And there is some jealousy of people who enjoy shooting sports, or like the peace of mind they get from being able to protect themselves from crime.
It's exactly the same with climate change. Can't ban this use of fossil fuels, can't ban that one, but SOMETHING must be done!! It always zeros in on one thing, old cars and trucks. Won't make any difference of course, but its SOMETHING. Users of older vehicles are in a small minority, don't have much political power, and the jealousy factor compares to that of anti-gun owners. Older vehicles are cost efficient to use, especially since they aren't loaded down with government regulations like newer ones are. Some, maybe not many, but some newer vehicle owners know that they pay more in the use of their new one, since they don't have the ability to maintain an older one and keep it running. They're not the only ones that would take pleasure in seeing older vehicles restricted or banned, but lobbyists for new vehicle companies would love to see those kinds of restrictions help them sell more of their new cars, and they would of course help with political contributions.
The U.S. is $31 trillion in debt. It could be time to start thinking real hard about not throwing away useful vehicles, or useful anything. Have you ever heard an analogy of how much a trillion is? The terms "million", "billion, and "trillion" tend to run together in peoples minds. Try this analogy - you've probably never seen it before since I came up with it my own self.
Picture, if you will, small stones, gravel. Average about 3/4 inch in diameter. 1000 pieces of this size gravel will fit in an area 1 foot square, 4 inches thick. Multiply that by 1000 to get a million, 1000 square feet is about as big as a good sized 2 car garage. 1000 good sized 2 car garages equals an area about the size of 16 football fields. That's as big as a really huge factory warehouse. So that big of an area, covered in small gravel 4 inches thick, equals one billion stones. 1000 x 16 football fields? I figured it years ago, might have screwed it up, but as I remember that equals an area about the size of the state of Maine. I'm no financial expert, but this kind of U.S. debt can't keep growing indefinitely without an economic meltdown, it just can't. And that meltdown will happen a lot sooner than a climate change meltdown.
Democrats in congress just passed, with the sig of our climate change loving president, a 1.7 trillion dollar bill. Nothing but debt to pay for it. It's loaded with pork. Some of that pork is a "hip hop" (gay) museum in the Bronx, and a $3.6 million hiking trail named after Michelle Obama. A LOT of fossil fuel will be used in the construction of those two things alone. Democrats don't always worry much about climate change, do they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by xongsmith, posted 12-30-2022 4:25 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by xongsmith, posted 01-01-2023 9:45 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 61 of 188 (904611)
01-02-2023 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by dwise1
01-01-2023 7:20 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
dwiseguy writes:
marc9000 writes:
Couldn't you summarize it, condense it, and post it here rather than just saying to read an entire book?
Already done in my Message 219 where I had recommended to Phat that he read that excellent book in order to finally learn what authoritarianism actually is. He keeps using that word but I don't think it means what he thinks it means.
The best way to find out what a word means is to look at a simple dictionary definition. This one works well;
quote:
Authoritarianism ; the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
It doesn't take a thick book dreamed up on a college campus to understand it any better.
Gun control is the opener to a long list of additional authoritarian mandates from a government. History is full of examples. There is a danger that it will preclude new climate change authority, new restrictions on fossil fuel use, etc.
The U.S. government recently hired 87,000 new IRS agents. That is additional authoritarianism.
It looks like this book is a liberal dance to make recently out-in-the-open perversions to be considered "freedoms", and any questioning of it to be an infringement on freedom, or authoritarian.
So, how did you score?
I don't have time for all that tonight. I might give it a try sometime, but the questions are obviously loaded, to show someone like me to be more of an authoritarian than a climate change fanatic, or gun control fanatic.
That new book does deal with Trump, though they had submitted the manuscript to the publisher on 26 Jun 2020 and Altemeyer's review of theirs and other books about the Trump Administration was written on 08 Oct 2020 (before the election, even). BTW, that link to Authoritarian Nightmare takes you to that review.
Of course, it will show Trump as a terrible authoritarian, the first one in world history to advocate that the general public remain armed. But it won't mention that part.
I haven't read the latest book yet, but I'm sure that it analyzes some of the MAGAt dumbfuckery that keeps getting ever worse.
Of course, and it won't mention Green New Deal authoritarianism.
BTW, it was John Dean who in 2006 urged Altemeyer to write The Authoritarians; read the Acknowledgements.
Not a surprise, another Watergate guy, G.Gordon Liddy, an actual conservative, called John Dean a rat several times on his talk radio show back in the 90's. Not surprised that Dean would hate Republicans.
marc9000 writes:
Does it contain an LWA spectrum also?

That is a most incredibly stupid and ignorant question. There's no such thing as a "LWA spectrum"!
quote:
Robert Anthony Altemeyer (born 6 June 1940) is a retired Professor of Psychology at the University of Manitoba.[1][2] Altemeyer also produced the right-wing authoritarianism scale, or RWA Scale,[3] as well as the related left-wing authoritarianism scale, or LWA Scale.[4]
Bob Altemeyer - Wikipedia
Please make an enormous life-style change and learn something about what you're pontificating about! You will be amazed at how much good it will do you to know what you are talking about.
The irony at this funny place can get thick as a brick sometimes.
It's called the RWA spectrum because that's what it measures. And as Altemeyer explains himself, it has absolutely nothing to do with politics (except that MAGAts and other Republicans tend to be high-RWA and Democrats low-RWA).
And you believe that? OF COURSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS! When people hear "right wing", they don't think of politics do they? I love this place! This book is obviously nothing but Democrat fringe entertainment.
Are you starting to understand now?
I sure do, thank you very much!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2023 7:20 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 01-03-2023 10:58 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024