If its OUR money you're spending, I say hell yeah !, otherwise say whatever you want to say....
Should laypersons have any say in any ecological issues including climate policy?
- Thread starter Micawber
- Start date
Can we not get more with your money by spending it wisely rather than aimlessly, in service of the untimate virtue? I think by the end of my patronizing
lecturing you will agree with me, for if the hoi polloi can not be convinced of this wisdom by the gifted, our collective potential cannot be maximized.
The idea that man has a say on altering how mother nature controls the earth's climate is a myth.....
I'd guess you put a lot of stock in the 'big bang' theory too, don't you ?
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
As can be seen, Micawber believes only people educated in politics and law or one of the other, should be allowed to vote.
Yet he earlier said nope.
What a dope.
Yet he earlier said nope.
What a dope.
Written in the era, and indeed professing the superiority of the city-state, a 2000+ year old anachronism. Further, you fail to explain why a layperson should carry the same power as an expert.
No and yes, respectively. All evidence points to an initial expulsion of all matter in the "visible" universe to a point. Around 14 billion years ago.
Given the trendlines of our knowledge advancement in astronomy, I would assume it was not the only one. Strangely, the increasing
speed at which the outermost radiation is departing from the "vortex," the state of affairs seems to be gradual univeral "cooling."
In other words, the gravity does not appear to be strong enough to pressage a collapse. There appears to be an inexorable disassociation
of all planets, stars, galaxies. That won't concern us if Republicans rule the federation. You'll have us dead long before we can even populate Mars
given your recent mothballing of NASA's mission this year.
Last edited:
You think the ideas that there is an ideal and corresponding aspiration and then practical limits has waned in 2000 years, if ever? LOL do explain.
I've argued the contrary, that as to matters requiring expert knowledge the uninformed should not carry any power. How can one disagree?
Why would anyone endorse chaos? Chaos is the natural state of affairs when the blind run around on the superhighway of advancement.
The rub is, of course, who decides who the deciders are. I'm going to have to trust the common wisdom on that. There is no other choice that does not
involve tyranny. But the Republican form of government is the right form, but make no mistake, we do not have it, insofar as the plebicite is not deciding
who the philosopher kings are, they are deciding which of the ignorant pawns selected by the plutocracy will decide important issues affecting them.
The Republicans LOVE that. The democrats much less so. The current ALT right is the antithesis of enlightened. They are countertrolls of enlightenment.
I would much rather we get politics out of the science realm and back in the swamps where it belongs.
On climate change: Create a non-partisan group of vetted climate, meteorology, and physics PhDs to study the current research and present their findings to a bipartisan climate-change congressional committee. If asked to research mitigation methods, they could present that as well. The committee could then query engineers, actuarial scientists, insurance company representatives, ag scientists, and so on to formulate some plans on how to deal with the effects of climate change.
Remember when research involving stem cells was turned into a political football by the fundies, and W banned it except for a few existing cell lines? Meanwhile, other nations w/o the stupid continued forward with their research. By the time Obama issued an EO lifting the restrictions on stem cell research, they were already far ahead of us.
Remember when the U.S. used to lead the entire planet in science, technology, medicine? Not any more, not since we let the stupids and the religious stick their noses into it. We can regain the crown, if we stop letting the ignorant direct policy.
Immigration and tax policy are not science and don't require a huge amount of education to understand. Well, maybe taxes do.... ugh.
Joe 6 should be well within his rights as a citizen to write to his congress-critter and say that he's against Immigration Policy X because he'll lose his job, or he's against Tax Policy Q because it means his taxes will go up. Opinions on things of this nature are what we do here, right?
But for Joe 6 to write his congress-critter and say he's against having climate change discussed, addressed, or even acknowledged as something real because Breitbart told him it's not is ridiculous. See my post about this, mentioning stem cell research. If you were a quadriplegic hoping for a cure, would you want Joe 6 and his wife Kathy K. Christian demanding that all stem cell research must cease now because Jesus?
We have a say, but in the end it's not much of one. The data is indisputable -- we are in a rapidly warming phase. Whether it is caused by human activity or not doesn't really matter at this point. What matters is what are we going to do about the effects on coastal properties, storm-damaged cities, drying agricultural lands, movement of large populations from a dying area to a better one (which displaces the folks already there).
When we have an idiot at the top of the political food chain who directs the govt. agencies responsible for formulating policy dealing with the above to cease even mentioning it on govt. websites, we got a problem. Stuffing our heads in the sand isn't going to keep the rising sea level from drowning us.
Can you tell me why this issue has become so political? Why do you, in particular, want to disregard the fact that things are changing and changing drastically? Thanks in advance.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
This summarizes the liberal mind to a tee. Wholly convinced of your own brilliance you actually believe you have all the answers and you must protect us from ourselves as well as protect yourself from us.
Here is a thought. Go fuck your self. You have lost the global warming argument. Whining about it on a lowly trafficked message board ain’t gonna change it sugar tits
BTW there is zero evidence of man made global warming. Fucking ZERO. All they have are mathematical models which is the shoddiest science there is. It is prone to bias and misinterpretation
So you agree.
Obviously there's a heavy load of facetious in my thread. So, how do we keep the politics out of science and get the smart in the politics? It is hard to avoid thinking at least at hypothesis level, that democracy is not any sort of guarantor that
TOTAL IDIOTS AND FASCISTS do not gain power. Unless people are smart, the decisions will be dumb. I can't distill it any further. We've reached a president as dumb as possible. He has quickly selected a staff as dumb as he can get away with.
And its all because he is a master at manipulating the least common denominator around the broadest possible agreement of stupidity that can be mathematically arrived at.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I mean, Trump won; Hillary got the nomination for the Dems. Bush won 2 terms.
Just read these boards.
People really shouldn't vote. It's just not working. We gave it a shot.
Just read these boards.
People really shouldn't vote. It's just not working. We gave it a shot.
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
Why didn't you mention Obama?