• Hanover
    12k
    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.
  • tim wood
    8.7k
    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.
  • Benkei
    7.1k
    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.
  • Hanover
    12k
    I live in the European Union and can buy land anywhere.Benkei

    I didn't realize that. What's the EU equivalent of Alabama?
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    The regulation of financing regulates the speech.Hanover

    Yes, the "speech" of buying elections. Brilliant.
  • h060tu
    120
    If other countries can do it, so can weXtrix

    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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    "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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    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/
  • h060tu
    120
    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
    120
    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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    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?
  • h060tu
    120
    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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    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.
  • h060tu
    120
    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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes meh060tu

    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 evolvedh060tu

    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.
  • h060tu
    120


    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.
  • h060tu
    120
    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.
  • h060tu
    120
    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.
  • h060tu
    120
    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.
  • h060tu
    120
    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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    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 Lomborgh060tu

    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.
  • h060tu
    120
    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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    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:
  • h060tu
    120
    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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    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.
  • h060tu
    120
    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.
  • h060tu
    120
    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.
  • Mikie
    6.1k
    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?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.