Nothing. I'll have gotten it all in place already. — Benkei

I know very little of your swampy little outpost, but am I correct in stating that property in the Netherlands is fairly expensive and the only crop you can grow is tulips?

The thing is, I could buy acres and acres of land in rural Alabama for next to nothing and I could probably raise pigs and chickens and grow corn pretty easily and could avoid the Armageddon better than you and your shoeless, shirtless kids could under their windmill in their tulip field.

I'm not suggesting you move to Alabama, as you lack the requisite sophistication, but I'm just questioning whether your plan is fully realizable where you are.

I actually went to the Biden site where he lists out his positions. If I had to pick what I didn't particularly like, it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out. He wants to study the idea of reparations, which I find horribly polarizing and unjust. That alone will cost him my vote. He had an entirely hands off stance with China, and I do see them as a threat and concern. I'm not in principle opposed to tariffs as he is. I didn't like his idea of raising teacher's salaries, as I don't follow how the federal government should have a hand in that very (very very) local issue. He's in favor of 2 years of free college education, which in principle sounds good, but that sounds again like a state issue, considering different state institutions charge differently and private colleges are much more expensive. I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech. His objections to drilling for oil I largely disagree with. — Hanover

I want to credit Hanover for this post. Imo it is a model for posts of this type. He went and did the work, has thought, and shared his thoughts. And I appreciate that; it's the essence, imo, of the philosophic method. Thank you, and I should hope myself to do as well in my future posts.

That said, and I mean every word of it, the substance of it I could not disagree with more. On taxes on the wealthy, perhaps you do not know just how skewed wealth is in the US. Perhaps you do not know, or do not remember, when the marginal tax rate approached 90%(!) for individuals with high incomes. As to corporate tax rates, that's simply an arbitrary rate based on the balance of government and corporate need - or should be. That the Walton siblings are among them worth between $500B - $1T might suggest there's something wrong somewhere. (At the same time I accept that in an open system great wealth is possible, but it's taxes that's the subject, and many wealthy people have expressed their own opinions that their own taxes should be a lot higher.)

Reparations is a can of worms, but imo there's basic merit in the idea. Raising teacher's salaries? Against it? Or against some methods of implementing it, or against some minimum federal standards? Same thing on education - what you're for or against isn't clear. And by all means be "close to an absolutist on free speech." We can hope that you know something of the history of free speech, what free speech was and what "free speech" actually is, and means, in this global community we live in now.

And I'm not looking for argument, or even discussion, on these issues. I only mean to acknowledge them, appreciate their being foregrounded, and indicate they're substantial issues worthy of substantial thought.

Maybe don't make so many assumptions. I live in the European Union and can buy land anywhere. Since I speak three languages, I have a couple of options.

I live in the European Union and can buy land anywhere. — Benkei

I didn't realize that. What's the EU equivalent of Alabama?

The regulation of financing regulates the speech. — Hanover

Yes, the "speech" of buying elections. Brilliant.

If other countries can do it, so can we — Xtrix

But they can't do it.

But otherwise, yes it can be done and has to be done if we want to survive. — Xtrix

"If we want to survive?" We'll survive climate change easily. Talk to any climate scientist, like actual ones, not activists, and they'll tell you. Sure, it will have an effect, but it's definitely not the hottest climate in the whole history of the climate, and it's also not cataclysmic.

"If we want to survive?" We'll survive climate change easily. Talk to any climate scientist, like actual ones, not activists, and they'll tell you. Sure, it will have an effect, but it's definitely not the hottest climate in the whole history of the climate, and it's also not cataclysmic. — h060tu

No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now. If we do remain with the status quo -- we're toast. Sure, maybe we survive somehow. Maybe some people survive nuclear war too. Not saying much.

Take a look at tipping points and see what happens to food supplies alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one.

If other countries can do it, so can we
— Xtrix

But they can't do it. — h060tu

They can, and they have.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/climate-change-report-card-co2-emissions/

They can, and they have. — Xtrix

CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. And in fact, not even among greenhouse gases.

CO2's role is very overplayed. Methane gas might be worse.

What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one. — Xtrix

Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me, but I'll gladly look for his name for you.

No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now. — Xtrix

Yes, and those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved. Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, stuff that could change for more reasons than merely the climate. And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution.

They can, and they have.
— Xtrix

CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. And in fact, not even among greenhouse gases.

CO2's role is very overplayed. Methane gas might be worse. — h060tu

No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man.

Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but doesn't last nearly as long as CO2. There's also plenty of other factors of climate change, as you mentioned. Deforestation, agricultural practices, energy sources, industry, etc. All major contributors. What's your point?

No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man. — Xtrix

Not really. Your article was about CO2. You post an article about CO2, and I replied to it, and then you say it is a strawman. Don't post articles if you haven't read them.

Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but doesn't last nearly as long as CO2. There's also plenty of other factors of climate change, as you mentioned. Deforestation, agricultural practices, energy sources, industry, etc. All major contributors. What's your point? — Xtrix

My point is, one measly article about lowering CO2 is about as relevant to curbing climate change as astrology is relevant about finding a planet in the Andromeda galaxy.

What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one.
— Xtrix

Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me, but I'll gladly look for his name for you. — h060tu

Please do, and if you can point me to where he says we'll "easily survive."

No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now.
— Xtrix

Yes, and those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved. — h060tu

Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.

Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, — h060tu

Wrong.

And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution. — h060tu

Completely wrong.

Completely wrong. — Xtrix

Completely correct.

Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well. — Xtrix

They already know. Most climate scientists aren't alarmists.

No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man.
— Xtrix

Not really. — h060tu

Yes, really. No one -- not myself, not anything I've cited, is arguing CO2 is the only driver of climate change. It's a complete straw man.

Your article was about CO2. — h060tu

No, it isn't. CO2 is one factor involved, yes. There are others -- including energy sources, energy consumption, climate policy, etc. etc.

Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass,
— h060tu

Wrong. — Xtrix

And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution.
— h060tu

Completely wrong. — Xtrix

Completely correct. — h060tu

No, completely wrong. Saying the "only real good solid data" is embarrassing. There's a number of excellent sources of data on the climate, which you would know if you deigned to read anything about the subject.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.
— Xtrix

They already know. Most climate scientists aren't alarmists. — h060tu

No, they're very alarmed indeed. Rightfully so.

Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me — h060tu

One scientist who you don't remember.

Your article was about CO2. — h060tu

Can't read.

CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. — h060tu

Spinner of straw.

those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved — h060tu

Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, — h060tu

Ridiculous claims without any evidence or sources. This last one is especially egregious.

So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.

Richard Lindzen at MIT. That's one climate scientist. I'm not an expert, but he is. And I haven't studied climate science as a layman, in years. So I don't really want to have a debate on this.

Another book I read was by a Swedish guy named Bjorn Lomborg (took me FOREVER to remember this guy and the title of the book,) called Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming another climate scientist.

I'm not an expert, but there's a lot of alarmism going on. Elizabeth Kolbert, who wrote The Sixth Extinction a massive alarmist tome, is a journalist, not a scientist. There are other such books and misinfo/disinfo out there.

Bill Nye, also not a scientist. He's like a Disney character basically. He has no scientific credentials.

No, it isn't. CO2 is one factor involved, yes. There are others -- including energy sources, energy consumption, climate policy, etc. etc. — Xtrix

Yes, but the article itself was about CO2. If you want to be dishonest, then be dishonest. I don't really care. Moral anti-realist.

No, completely wrong. Saying the "only real good solid data" is embarrassing. There's a number of excellent sources of data on the climate, which you would know if you deigned to read anything about the subject. — Xtrix

The government is not a source. There was a "source" about WMDs in Iraq. It's fake. I don't trust the government "data" on anything. Economics, WMDs, their secret programs and operations destroying other people's countries, creating false flags, lying to the American people, infiltrating groups and manipulating events, mind control programs. Yeah, no. I don't trust the government "data" unless it's methodology is sound. If the methodology is sound, I'll believe it. But I don't take government data at face value.

No, they're very alarmed indeed. Rightfully so. — Xtrix

They're really not. Political activists, media personalities and the UN and other globalist fronts are. But nobody serious is.

So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing. — Xtrix

Yeah, that's what you're doing. I never did that. I cited two climate scientists who agree with me. And I cited a journalist who would agree with you. You're the one doing what you claim I am.

Richard Lindzen at MIT. — h060tu

LOL. Oh, what a shocker. A well known (and well used by deniers) "skeptic." This is your example? Pathetic. Maybe read up on these people before spouting nonsense:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

A number of his lies and distortions are well-documented, point by point.

I'm not an expert, but he is. And I haven't studied climate science as a layman, in years. So I don't really want to have a debate on this. — h060tu

Good, very wise to keep your mouth shut about things you don't understand.

Another book I read was by a Swedish guy named Bjorn Lomborg — h060tu

So two climate change deniers. This is what you read? Not the IPCC, not NASA, not NOAA, not the thousands of climatologists out there studying this -- you quote two well known liars (Lomborg less so, although his distortions are incredible as well -- although he's been promoted by imbeciles like Jordan Peterson).

I'm not an expert, but there's a lot of alarmism going on. Elizabeth Kolbert, who wrote The Sixth Extinction a massive alarmist tome, is a journalist, not a scientist. There are other such books and misinfo/disinfo out there. — h060tu

I agree -- Kolbert shouldn't be view as a credible source either. But it's ironic you say that many books of misinformation is out there, after just citing two yourself.

So two climate change deniers. This is what you read? Not the IPCC, not NASA, not NOAA, not the thousands of climatologists out there studying this -- you quote two well known liars (Lomborg less so, although his distortions are incredible as well -- although he's been promoted by imbeciles like Jordan Peterson). — Xtrix

LOL So scientists you disagree with are not worth your time, only ones that already confirm your preconceived bias. That's amazing.

Yeah, this conversation is over. You're just a propagandist, an ideological robot. That's fine, but I'm wasting my time talking. My time is important, yours not so much.

The government is not a source. There was a "source" about WMDs in Iraq. It's fake. I don't the government "data" on anything. Economics, WMDs, their secret programs and operations destroying other people's countries, creating false flags, lying to the American people, infiltrating groups and manipulating events, mind control programs. Yeah, no. I don't trust the government "data" unless it's methodology is sound. If the methodology is sound, I'll believe it. But I don't take government data at face value. — h060tu

The IPCC is not the US government, it's a number of research institutes and thousands of scientists.

Good to see you're very skeptical about things, yet swallow the bullshit of Lindzen wholesale. Interesting. :roll:

The IPCC is not the US government, it's a number of research institutes and thousands of scientists.

Good to see you're very skeptical about things, yet swallow the bullshit of Lindzen wholesale. Interesting. :roll: — Xtrix

I never "swallowed" anything. His view is one view. IPCC is another. Until there is evidence that can establish the likelihood of one hypothesis over the other, then there is underdetermination of hypothesis. That has always been my position. Always. Never said anything different.

You assume that because I question your assumptions, that I am a "denier" I am not a "denier" I am Agnostic on the question. I don't know, and neither do you and neither do they. There's a just a lot of claims, and nothing to back them up.

No, they're very alarmed indeed. Rightfully so.
— Xtrix

They're really not. — h060tu

And you definitely know, because you're so very informed.

So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.
— Xtrix

Yeah, that's what you're doing. — h060tu

No, I've studied this for years actually.

I cited two climate scientists who agree with me. — h060tu

Yes, you've found two climate deniers who agree with you. There are a handful of others, too. I can find them for you if you'd like. But I asked for credible sources.

LOL So scientists you disagree with are not worth your time, only ones that already confirm your preconceived bias. That's amazing. — h060tu

No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well.

Yeah, this conversation is over. You're just a propagandist, an ideological robot. That's fine, but I'm wasting my time talking. My time is important, yours not so much. — h060tu

Yes, smart move. Word of advice: next time, keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you're talking about. A little research goes a long way.

Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.

No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well. — Xtrix

No you haven't.

Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means. — Xtrix

No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious.

I never "swallowed" anything. His view is one view. IPCC is another. — h060tu

Lol. Right, just like creationists have "one side" and "evolutionists" have another view. Or, better, flat-earthers have a view and NASA has another view. Both totally plausible.

For that matter, the homeless man screaming about Jesus has a view too. Maybe you should cite him as a source?

Until there is evidence that can establish the likelihood of one hypothesis over the other, then there is underdetermination of hypothesis. — h060tu

Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago.

You assume that because I question your assumptions, that I am a "denier" I am not a "denier" I am Agnostic on the question. — h060tu

On what question?

I don't know, and neither do you and neither do they. There's a just a lot of claims, and nothing to back them up. — h060tu

No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too?