July 22, 2019 at 8:20 am #303891July 22, 2019 at 8:41 am #303892
Player, since I’ve neither the time nor the inclination to teach you all you clearly do not know or understand, I’ll, instead, offer you the opportunity to enlighten me.
Since you started with climate change, let’s go there. Okay, you say my symptomatic approach is inadequate. Fine. Let’s have your’s. What’s your plan for turning things around? And please don’t provide me rhetoric, or a childishly naive plan that depends on unenforceable, politically motivated international agreements. To be valid, your plan must be solidly based on scientific, economic, social, historical, and political data clearly demonstrating, in detail, the development and critical analysis of alternatives, the climatic, economic, social, and political effects the selected alternative, and, in detail, how, in practice, it would be internationally and implemented and enforced.July 24, 2019 at 8:01 pm #304002
First accept what the science is telling you like a true skeptic in that atm co2 reduced from 400 + ppm to 300ppm.
Then introduce policies that are consistent with this reality. The GND puts us on the pathway to zero emmissions by eliminating fossil fuels in 10 years.
Next is putting energy production and decision making into the hands of the public not private interests
Next reduce our global emmisions fairly and equitably across the world through contraction and convergence
Of course all this will not happen without address my point 4 and rejecting todays mindless mantra of economic growthJuly 24, 2019 at 8:06 pm #304003
So lets move onto point 2.
“Military industrial complex and imperialist wars. Can you say “leftist propaganda?” This is a complex subject that you obviously do not have a clue on. Weak leaders and an unprepared defense are much more likely to bring war than your boogymen”
You say that it is not true that war is the business model for weapons manufacturers and the revolving door between govt and these corporation doesnt facilitate this?
Can you name me a war in the name of defence?July 24, 2019 at 9:43 pm #304006
Player, this isn’t a plan – its not even a concept. Maybe just the beginning of one. As I said before, to be valid, your plan must be solidly based on scientific, economic, social, historical, and political data clearly demonstrating, in detail, the development and critical analysis of alternatives, the climatic, economic, social, and political effects the selected alternative, and, in detail, how, in practice, it would be internationally and implemented and enforced.
It ain’t that.July 24, 2019 at 10:21 pm #304009
Player, for me to answer that question, please define what you would accept as “defense:”
- Defense against actual attack against US territory by conventional, unconventional, nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, and/or cyber forces?
- Defense against actual attack against US allies and/or interests by same?
- Defense against actual attack against friendly or neutral peoples or nations that request US assistance?
- Defense against the imminent threat of attack by same (of course, this assumes you’ve sufficient intel assets in place to detect this)?
- Defense against actual or imminent proxy attack – do you consider the defense to be against the proxy or the sponsoring power, or both?
Also, please define the damage level the threat or attack could cause that you would consider justifying going to war over? To keep it simple, let’s just consider lives lost for now. Would you believe war justified if an actual attack took 1 US life? 100? 10,000? 1,000,000? What about the threat of attack – if the threat, if carried out, would likely take . . . how many lives before a war to remove or mitigate that threat would be justified? What is your value for “likely?” 10%? 50%? 80%?
Now, if we also consider non-direct population damage – economic, infrastucture, resources, food/water supply, etc., what level of damage justifies a war of defense? Now consider the consequential indirect loss of life. How many lives lost indirectly (through, for example, patients dying because hospitals were disabled) would justify a war of defense?
And, while we’re at it, should we feel justified going to war, what should our goal be? To remove the ability to attack the US, or, if something less, what would that be?
Answer these questions, and I’ll be able to give you an example, if it exists.July 24, 2019 at 10:49 pm #304013
Any of your dot points. Which war fits any of these?
As for AGW , the science os settled, economics is clear in terms of cost of BAU, socially progressive on terms of empowering the masses and politcally internationalJuly 25, 2019 at 7:56 am #304021
Player, just answer the questions. No squirming. How do YOU define defensive war?
As regards global warming, nope, your’s is not an answer. As I said before, to be valid, your plan must be solidly based on scientific, economic, social, historical, and political data clearly demonstrating, in detail, the development and critical analysis of alternatives, the climatic, economic, social, and political effects the selected alternative, and, in detail, how, in practice, it would be internationally and implemented and enforced.
Even economically, the answer is far from settled, given that the other aspects of the answer haven’t been – each can’t be taken in isolation and “answered” based on a host of assumptions – probably the worst of which is that part about “. . . reduce our global emmisions fairly and equitably across the world . . .” That’s like that part in a development flow chart where it says “a miracle happens here.”July 25, 2019 at 8:24 am #304023
you made the claim so its on your head explain what you mean. An example would help. As for “that’s like that part in a development flow chart where it says “a miracle happens here.”
you better do your homework and read the paper. Oh and the science is crystal clear on what needs to be done.July 25, 2019 at 9:32 am #304030
Nope. Your claim. I’m unaware of ANY feasible plan to reverse or turn around global warming, so I’ve nothing to prove. My position is to prepare for it, while doing anything reasonable to reduce our global warming impact, that doesn’t impact our preparations. YOU are the one who said that was unsatisfactory, that we needed to fix it, so I’m just asking you to tell me how, and not in grand concepts, but an executable plan. Otherwise, preparing for it is what we must do.July 25, 2019 at 2:04 pm #304044XainParticipant
Sounds like you want other people to do your work for you.July 25, 2019 at 2:31 pm #304048
Xain, and what work would that be?July 25, 2019 at 3:54 pm #304054LaustenKeymaster
I don’t know where you were 30 years ago Gene, but this is where we are now. We could have changed our infrastructure using basically the economic systems we had at the time. We could have invested in solar and shifted subsidies away from coal and oil. Feasible plans were being proposed. But we (the US) were the worst players in the world and less powerful players didn’t have much choice. So now, people like you are saying nothing can be done. That was the actual plan all along, do nothing, then nothing could be done, profit from the chaos.July 25, 2019 at 4:48 pm #304062
Lausten, now you’re sounding like a conspiracy theorist. I could say the same things about many of the threats we face – if we’d have only done something then . . .
The reality is that most humans have a hard time with long range planning, and politicians, only worried about the next election, are the worst.
Regardless of how we got here, however, we are where we are, and have to deal with things as they are, not as we would wish them to be.
As for what I was doing 30 years ago, I’d just returned from a year long unaccompanied deployment to the middle and far east, and was getting reacquainted with my wife and daughter.July 25, 2019 at 9:10 pm #304071LaustenKeymaster
The biggest conspiracy going on now is people coming up with conspiracies and making memes and artificial clicks to promote them and keeping people from trusting real news and science. Epstein just got arrested and if having a high ranking judge let you off easy is not a conspiracy, I don’t know what is. Anti-global warming is not so much conspiracy as pseudo science used by powerful people so they can keep their planet killing businesses going. They are very aware of people’s short attention spans and inability to think ahead a few decades. They don’t need a conspiracy, they were born into an economy based on carbon and greed and they just found a place in it.
You saying “regardless” is a symptom of that. The whole point is how we got here. It’s that whole “doomed to repeat it” thing, except this time, we aren’t just destroying an empire in the corner of a continent, we have a global empire, and it’s not sustainable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.