3RU7AL

Which theists "love" to use deistic arguments?

So what do you dislike about it?

Are you suggesting schools don't teach kids how to lose gracefully?

So how exactly are we supposed to stop this freight train?

A miracle AKA global change which is unlikely to occur.

Its so sad i looked at the research of the experts it all it all points to man made global warmng climate change whatever being real and being harmful

how can you deny what it right in your face happening?

nothing really to add that to what I've already said, cities creating green spaces, rooftop gardens etc have had success lowering the temperature which means less ac etc.  Dummyfornia painted some roads a white-ish color so the wouldn't get so hot, whatever a stronger word for stupid is, use that.

there lacks any real will to do anything, they want the government to fix it.  there's a bigger picture to look at.  I'm tired of seeing the ads on tv about "kids being at risk for going hungry" ffs get a bucked and grow some lettuce and other healthy easy to grow foods.  But nooo we couldn't expect people to do that, be responsible for their own lives, nope, we have to give them more handouts, free phones, free health care, free food, only it's not free now is it.

there were some small initiatives where people got together and created community gardens in vacant or abandoned lots, but that cuts into video game and tv time so it doesn't go to far and is probably abandoned pretty fast.

You need skin in the game as they say for anyone to really give a shit, which is why they don't and here we are.

sure that's to be expected I think, eventually everything will be underwater won't it?  We think we can hold back the Mississippi river until a storm hits and all those houses are flooded.  I don't blame climate change for that though.

how much of the rise is due to natural and manmade land erosion?  What about the undersea volcanoes and the plates rising or shifting?

"A ruthless [stupid/savage/gutless/disingenuous] minority of people seems to have forgotten certain good old fashioned virtues.

They just can't stand seeing the other fellow win.

If these people would just play the game, they'd get a lot more out of life."

More landfills, preferably the ones with the modern codes like rubber linings. Less recycling of most plastic, which goes straight into the ocean. 

More aggressive federal controls to prevent wildfires including clearing out accumulated deadwood and controlled burns. Privatize this job if the government is inadequate. Have lawyers oversee the privatization with broad tort powers.

All coal burners must have scrubbers. Mandatory flaring on all LNG drilling.

pretty much all there is to say

https://youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY

Climate Alarmism Isn't Rational

https://youtu.be/tUR0LrSadkg

Also, check out Gordon Ramsey explain how to effectively improve the lives of everyone in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

Do you have a reference for these microchip companies violating human rights. 

So what's truly at fault here? The labor laws of the United States or the hiring practices of the microchip companies?

No, you argued that the rich make their fortunes off the backs of the poor, and I have given you at least three examples where that is not the case.

So what's truly at fault here? The labor laws of the United States or the hiring practices of the microchip companies?

And if you google the average salary of those who are in the microchip industry, it's about $82,000, or do they not count in the collection of backs off which the rich make their fortune? 

Economics 101.  The rich make their money on the backs of the poor.  Without poor people, there would be no rich people. CHEAP LABOR is the life-blood of the Free-Market.

That's not "Economics 101." If you took economics 101 you may have learned the concept of profit maximization which doesn't always mean paying cheap labor. A glaring example of this are private hospitals and law firms. They pay their employees a lot of money because of the commerce they generate. Another example would be professional basketball players a la NBA players. Superstar players make north of 200 million dollars. Their team owners are billionaires. That's an example of the rich making money of the backs of the rich. Your statement, for lack of better terms, is just Marxist nonsense. 

It's like asking a doctor to do brain surgery on you when he can't even do basic first aid on a paper cut.

Lots of people like Christen and Alec talk as if they took a decent-quality personal finance class but mistook it for an economics class.

It would be like taking a psychology class and mistaking it for a sociology class.

They simply can't wrap their head around the idea that a group of 7.4 billion people is going to interact differently than a group of two to six people.

I think we agree we should do everything practical to have cleaner air, water etc.  That doesn't require a global solution or global involvement.  Clean up your own yard before you complain about the neighbors.

I get it. You can't control what kind of family you're born into.

You can however, control what decisions you make after you're born into that family.

If you can slowly work your way out of poverty, you can then end your cycle of generations of poor children.

Alternatively, If poor people who were born into poor families and could not work their ways out of poverty, the simplest thing to do would be to not have kids yourself, which would also break that cycle.

If you are unhapoy that you were born into a poor family, why put another newborn child through that same situation?

If only the wealthy had kids, the cycle would be broken, and if the poor people stopped continuing to have kids, the cycle wouldn't continue, and you wouldn't keep having more and more kids born into the same kind of poor family that you were born into.

Part of the issue is that newborns grow up to repeat the same mistakes their parents made, which is having kids themselves while in such poverty.

The least a person born into a poor family can do is stop the cycle by stop having kids to continue the cycle in the first place.

Since there are some things you cannot control, it just makes sense to instead focus on what you can control.

it might not be climate doom, but dont you think droughts, massive hurricanes, collapsed ecosystems, and flooded cities are things we should try to limit? 

...it will just create this endless cycle of "poor parent > poor child > poor child grows up into poor parent > another poor child born > that poor child grows up to become poor > becomes the parent of another poor child" and so on.

Most well water naturally tastes like crap. Nature is full of natural toxins.

If you aren't getting water from a water treatment plant, you are retardedly trusting nature to keep you healthy.

Nature is deadly.

If you don't like what my solar panels and windmill looks like, why should I care?

again look at how and what is needed to make solar panels (batteries) then look at what is needed for the generator, which is more environmentally friendly?  

Have you ever looked into cobalt mining?  If not that could be a real eye opener for you.

there is actual evidence for vaccines, climate change is prediction/speculation, you can see the effects of disease on unvaccinated children.

Just beautiful generators?  Is this really a quibble about aesthetics?

they can be installed in basements, their footprint is a fraction of solar panels, they don't require rare metals that are mined in China, nor do they require the special and extensive wiring and other support devices solar needs.  Quibble?  yeah ok

Are you suggesting MONEY = EVIL?

not at all, 'climate change' isn't immune to the special interests and money influence no matter how some try to paint it.  I was explaining the many reasons 'climate change' sounds more like a conspiracy than factual.

What we should be doing is what Outplayz suggested.

China and India are clearly free-riding by increasing Fossil fuel consumption while the USA decreases.

What are you going to do about those free-riders?

This proposal requires NO FUNDING.  It simply reallocates EXISTING MONEY.

$20,000 per kid will cost about $1.2 Trillion and the education system doesn´t spend that amount of money.  What programs would you cut to raise this money?

Here's another idea (Fix-US+), end public education and instead, funnel all the money that we spend on k-12 education into individual "nest-egg" funds for the children.

Let's say, $20,000.00 per year per kid per grade, that looks like about $260,000.00 on your 18th birthday.

Ending public education won't be enough money for your UBI.

There are strategies that you can use to compensate for their variability.

What kinds of strategies?

Individual consumers can do almost nothing to "stop" pollution.

Maybe not, but we can plant trees, clean up trash, clean up litter, throw out garbage, avoid hoarding useless items for years, try to live a minimalist lifestyle, and keep our homes as clean as we reasonably can. That doesn't necessarily "stop" pollution, but it does drastically reduce it.

(3) Plain paper, aluminum and glass can replace plastic in 90+% of consumer packaging.  But this is NOT the consumer's responsibility.

I'm against banning plastic because plastic is easy, cheap, and versatile.

Furthermore, how does plastic cause climate change? Plastic isn't a fossil fuel.

Should everyone stop going to church because that doesn't stop murderers from slaughtering innocents?

Yes, everyone should stop going to church not only because it doesn't stop murderers but also because it's a waste of time and money and they could be doing much better things with their lives as opposed to worshipping their "god" for the sake of going to this magical fantasy land called "heaven".

Have you ever heard of the "free-rider problem"?

Who are the ones free-riding here? It can't be the producers because they have to put in work to produce things using energy. It can't be the consumers either because they usually have to pay for things, not free-ride.

Are you willing to put 5 billion people in prison for destroying your planet?

If you are all in on climate change destroying the planet, we should already be at war with India and others.

I was looking at that graph and noticed something neat. China currently has 2 times the CO2 output of the USA, and is on track for 3x CO2 output within your lifetime.

Even if USA went to "zero" CO2, the planet is already fu*@!ed.

and yet they push hard for the electric cars, lol, yeah no special interest there I'm sure.

locally, there are advertisements for natural gas generators, so as with hydrogen cars, that would work in the same way to generate household electricity.  No ugly, expensive panels or wind turbines,

...and yet again they push hard for these things.......  Follow the money.

Also how are we supposed to stop the predicted fossil fuel increases in China, India, and Africa...all of which are experiencing their own industrial revolutions requiring massive amounts of fossil fuels but their usage is magnified by their relatively much larger populations than the USA...at least 5 times more people in those emerging economies than those living in the USA and Europe combined....

Do we just docilely accept the damage these countries are inevitably going to do to the planet while we ride our bicycles in the snow munching on soyburgers?

So, assuming that climate change is as serious of a threat as those "97% of scientists" say it is, what exactly are we supposed to do to combat it?