A warming world - the climate issue

From the Economist here: The Climate Issue - excerpts:

'Nuff said? Methinks not ...

 

Different day same dribble. YAAAWN

 

Was it the way the article boosted capitalism that upset you so? I know that happens with socialists.

 

Meh, the hysteria is based on simple models that cannot model many of earths climate processes. The hysterical are now claiming that we are suffering from climate change without any proof whatsoever and in fact, statistically cannot be proven.

 

What you don't know is Socialism exists nowhere in the world anymore except North Korea.

So, plug in your brain and stop with the name-calling. This is supposedly a "Debate Forum".

Perhaps you'd be happier on a Message Board for leaving your one-liner sarcasm ...

 

Not to worry. You go on Ignore ...

 

Governments need to invest in technology, green energy, people will not change unless the science makes it easier and or cheaper to change

and all this cow fart nonsense is only hurting their fight......

yes, man made Climate change is an issue... but trying to add fake causes from the anti-meaters only strengthens the other side of the issue

 

Corporatism is pretty much ruling the world - but there are some socialist places like the Amish, ect...

if the people do not have good jobs, socialism wins, so time to bring the jobs back home and reduce foreign outsourcing and foreign imports

 

WE ARE ON THE WRONG "TRACK"

There is no such "thing" as socialism. Look up the word in a dictionary! The definition says quite clearly that "the government owns all the means of production"!

What exists (almost entirely in Europe) - and you may want to rant about - is called Social Democracy, the definition of which is this:

Now, maybe you don't know what Social Justice means? It means that the opposite of Communism - and is defined as:

Given the above, let's look at the charted distribution of Wealth in the US:

When one looks at the nitty-gritty of the actual numbers, this fact evolves:

What does all this mean? It means had the US a higher taxation-base, all that income that "passed through" to the upper 10% of the population could be instead attributed to the country as a whole. Meaning, we'd all get National Health Care and Free Post-secondary Education with which to make a decent living in this Brave New Information-Age* of ours.

Both of which would put America on the Right-&-Proper Track for the future. Without which ... uh, Watch-out ... !

*America's Industrial Age left a long time ago and has settled in China. Ditto for the Europe Union (EU) as well.

 

Well, I don't know if the Amish own their own farms, and if they do, they are not "socialists".

You really need a lesson in the meaning of "socialism" - but, then, so does half of the American population.

I don't know what-the-hell they teach you in Civics Class, but it is not the above! And no-one dares talk about:
*The fact that five-times in the history of the US the archaic-system of the Electoral College for wrongly designating the loser of the Popular-vote as PotUS, and
*The vote of the HofR is also misappropriated due to blatant Gerrymandering of voting districts.

It's time Uncle Sam had a closer look at the fundamentals of its own "so-called democracy" rather than pointing the finger-of-blame at other countries ... !

 

Global warming is net beneficial. 'Nuff said.

 

There is a reason for that. And there is a book explaining why - "The Commanding Heights - The Battle for the World Economy".

 

The problem I have with the climate change crowd is they use weather to justify their cause. They constantly ask me if I know the difference between climate and weather. The thing is, the climate of the US southwest is a desert. That has nothing to do with the weather! Except in their eyes.

 

If the Amish collectively own their farms, as do some other sects of Anabaptists, then they would be considered socialist. I don't know if that is the case with the Amish.

 

So disappointing....
Somehow, "Climate change" now means "fossil fuels," even though CO2 emissions have little effect on global climate.
Somehow, climate never changed before people started using fossil fuels.
Somehow, by not using fossil fuels, we can make the natural processes that have caused all climate change to date no longer operative.

What an appalling and disgraceful load of nonscience.

 

Phoenix and Vegas are still arid climates. The Colorado Rockies are about to get a ton of snow (their CLIMATE) and I still live in a moist climate. The weather however...lol

 

And increased CO2 is a bonus.

 

Exactly. The earth is greening and crops yields are higher.

 

No, that stopped in the 1990s.

But due to GMO crops, not CO2.

 

Greening stopped in the 90’s ??? Why do you think it stopped ???

All those farms in Canada went GMO ???

 

You are quite wrong.

Here's the definition of the word from Merriam-Webster:

Do the Amish OWN COLLECTIVELY THEIR FARMS? No!

From BusinessInsider:

 

LafayetteBis, I don't see how you could claim I was wrong. The Merriam-Webster quote is very consistent with my post.

The Business insider quote does not mention property ownership. I never claimed the Amish do collectively own property or own property individually.

Nevertheless, there are groups of people that own and operate land and businesses collectively, that is socialism. But perhaps you have a different understanding of socialism inspite of Merriam-Webster's definition.

 

NO IT IS NOT SOCIALISM!

I have repeated the definition of socialism here a hundred times, and you knee-jerk wrongly in exactly the same fashion each time. You have no idea of what socialism is, so go LOOK IT UP! (Hint: Socialism is a political doctrine by which the state owns all the means of production, and for yokels in Idaho that means farmland! Do you get it?)

Socialism exists NOWHERE IN THE US - because, for instance, a state-owned highway that charges usage is theoretically "a socialist activity" but who gives damn? It is a necessary public service utility. Which it should be in other domains as well - for instance in Healthcare and Postsecondary Education.

Both of which should be free, gratis and for nothing! Why? Because they are services fundamental to the way we live our lives in this Brave New World of ours that is upon us!

So IF THAT'S SOCIALISM then Uncle Sam needs a lot, and thank-you-very-much!

And as for the rest, American Capitalism breeds billionaires for no good reason whatsoever. If they were taxed fairly, the resulting revenues could be better employed than wasting it on the DoD! (See - if you dare - that sad fact portrayed here.) For instance, on providing us all with a Decent Healthcare System and Free Tertiary Education for our children!

 

DYSFUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACY

It is, but a very courageous Swedish-girl leading demonstrations is not going to change much, I fear.

Real-politics will always decide in the favor of those with "vested interests". Because of that fact we have a dysfunctional-democracy in America - made that way from the get-go by our founders in 1812 (when both Gerrymandering and the Electoral College were first formed and employed electorally). Both parties (in a dual-only party system) have employed those mechanisms ever since in local, state and national elections.

We've done nothing to change those patent-manipulations in the US - as if both were just-fine as manipulations go. Besides, who the hell gives-a-damn?

Nobody ...

 

The Economist has got this Very Right. I cannot imagine that tomorrow all jet-aircraft and all non-electric cars are going to be banned. It just aint gonna happin.

I, for one who has done a lot of business-travel, can see that such a means is highly-unnecessary in this Brave New Internet World. All that need be said and done businesswise can be without personal interaction via the Net. Personal travel could be relegated to aircraft propelled by non-combustible fuels. Or by preferential pricing by electric-train in some countries.

It will take a great effort to change from petrol-to-sun origin energies. But, in many respects that is already underway. It's a just a matter of time (and the sun) before it happens.

But, admittedly, that timespan could be shortened still more were it given sun-based energy tax-incentives - which has started to happen.

Unfortunately, most countries are nowhere near replacing entirely present air-pollution electric-energy generation. Europe and the US have different venues.

For the US, from here: Renewable Energy | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions -

As for Europe, see Key Findings (page 3) here: The European Power Sector in 2018

I am frankly not the least bit convinced that America's effort is timewise sufficient.

Given this from the Economist:
Climate issue: Replacing the fossil-fuel technology which is reshaping the climate remains a massive task