Wyoming is 1st state to reject science standards (no global warming hoax)

[PRB]

PRB,

Let's just say--for the sake of argument--that global warming is true. Should governments do anything about it? If so, what should they do?

No, the government shouldn't do anything about it but convey the facts and let people solve their own problems.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, the government shouldn't do anything about it but convey the facts and let people solve their own problems.

If the government is not doing anything about it, then why are they conveying the facts?

 

[RickyJ]

Just because governments use global warming as an excuse to create new laws does not mean it is a hoax. The government often uses children as an excuse to create laws, but I am pretty sure children exist.

Global warming is not a hoax, man made global warming is a hoax though.

 

[Danke]

No, the government shouldn't do anything about it but convey the facts and let people solve their own problems.

Brilliant!

 

[PRB]

If the government is not doing anything about it, then why are they conveying the facts?

so they have less work to do later? is it not in the government's interest to reduce crimes and disaster victims?

 

[RickyJ]

so they have less work to do later? is it not in the government's interest to reduce crimes and disaster victims?

No, it isn't. The only thing in our government's interest is short-term profit for the current office holders. They have no problem wiping out close to 3000 mostly US citizens in a single day to start wars for more personal profit to themselves. Even Obama, the supposed man of "change" and "peace" now says that he is "really good at killing people", as if he is proud of it. Modern day governments don't exist for the people they supposedly represent, they exist to control the people they supposedly represent and to profit off of them.

 

[PRB]

No, it isn't. The only thing in our government's interest is short-term profit for the current office holders. They have no problem wiping out close to 3000 mostly US citizens in a single day to start wars for more personal profit to themselves. Even Obama, the supposed man of "change" and "peace" now says that he is "really good at killing people", as if he is proud of it. Modern day governments don't exist for the people they supposedly represent, they exist to control the people they supposedly represent and to profit off of them.

Ahhh, so in that case, the government is foolish to not have used drones on us already, who cares about legality?

the government would be foolish to scare us about global warming ,or cooling, and best to leave us deaf, dumb and blind, so every city can be like New Orleans and Brigantine.

 

[Danke]

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

is it not in the government's interest to reduce crimes and disaster victims?

I don't follow you. What does buying a house near a river have to do with crime? I also don't see how government interest would eclipse an individual's interest to not get caught up in a disaster.

Wouldn't the people living in such predictably hazardous areas have an even larger than government interest in not locating in these places to begin with? Hazards will, after all, directly affect that resident. If the residents themselves are not even interested in their own well-being, then why should the government/taxpayer be interested in their well-being?

 

[PRB]

I don't follow you. What does buying a house near a river have to do with crime?

Nothing. Other than if disasters make crimes easier to commit and harder to control.

I also don't see how government interest would eclipse an individual's interest to not get caught up in a disaster.

Oh, because as of now, the government, for better or worse, has no intention of shrinking or leaving people to help themselves, so disasters will almost always be on the government's hands when it comes to assistance and disaster relief, regardless of what a crappy job or wasteful spending it is. So it's not that they eclipse, it's that the government has an independent interest in avoiding disaster and disaster relief.

Wouldn't the people living in such predictably hazardous areas have an even larger than government interest in not locating in these places to begin with?

Predictably dangerous according to who? Scientists? People who say "it's always happened, what's the big deal"? But regardless of whether they have an interest, the question asked to me was why the government would want to convey a warning.

Hazards will, after all, directly affect that resident. If the residents themselves are not even interested in their own well-being, then why should the government/taxpayer be interested in their well-being?

They shouldn't, but they're not going away anytime soon, is warning people to either avoid or prevent disasters not in the usually overreaching government's interest? Or do you believe the govenrment would either create or take advantage of them to exercise tyranny? (could and would are not the same)

 

[dude58677]

Not that if I did, you'd believe me, since you obviously don't trust anybody if you didn't do it yourself.

Laws of gravity tells me that whatever goes up must come down. I threw a pencil up in the air and it came down. There are exceptions I flew a paraglider and that was based on thrust, weight, lift, and drag. I saw this for myself. That is why physics is a real science. Being called a scientist is not a badge you wear it is what you do. Until you come up with a test that can show if climate change is real and how to do the testing so we can do it ourselves then we'll talk otherwise your just making talking points.

I won't reply till you do because I'm not going to waste my time and no one else should until you do come up with the test and the methodology to do it.

 

[PRB]

Laws of gravity tells me that whatever goes up must come down. I threw a pencil up in the air and it came down. There are exceptions I flew a paraglider and that was based on thrust, weight, lift, and drag. I saw this for myself. That is why physics is a real science. Being called a scientist is not a badge you wear it is what you do. Until you come up with a test that can show if climate change is real and how to do the testing so we can do it ourselves then we'll talk otherwise your just making talking points.

I won't reply till you do because I'm not going to waste my time and no one else should until you do come up with the test and the methodology to do it.

I wasn't alive Lincoln allegedly lived, so why should I believe he existed?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

... government, for better or worse, has no intention of shrinking

This is the whole point. It's better for the people who insist in living in disaster prone areas, and then those same people get bailed out by the taxpayer when disaster hits. It's worse for the taxpayer who pays for the irresponsible people.

...government has an independent interest in avoiding disaster and disaster relief.

Independent of what? The government IS made of the irresponsible people and their advocates like you.

Predictably dangerous according to who? Scientists?

Who?! YOU just agreed that it's not a good idea to live near a river. Do you actually need a scientist or the government to tell you this?

People who say "it's always happened, what's the big deal"?

Yes, of course, they say it's not a big deal, especially when you have taxpayers to bail you out for your irresponsibility.

 

[PRB]

This is the whole point. It's better for the people who insist in living in disaster prone areas, and then those same people get bailed out by the taxpayer when disaster hits. It's worse for the taxpayer who pays for the irresponsible people.

The government doesn't benefit from moving on guy's money into another guy's hand, not while it's running up debt left and right, so if for nothing else, the government prefers to avoid having to help anybody.

Independent of what? The government IS made of the irresponsible people and their advocates like you.

Independent of whether the interests overlap.

Who?! YOU just agreed that it's not a good idea to live near a river. Do you actually need a scientist or the government to tell you this?

How near is near? How often should one be worried? Are there safe seasons? Is it better to live in the middle of no water at all?

Yes, of course, they say it's not a big deal, especially when you have taxpayers to bail you out for your irresponsibility.

Are Sandy and Katrina victims deserving of what they got prior to getting any bailout or assistance from government? Were they dipshits who should've known not to live there? Or innocent and ignorant and they could've been anybody?

Back to global warming being a hoax. What's the government's agenda? To scare people into paying carbon taxes so they'll feel safe? Or scare people into not living in dangerous areas so government would have less people to bail out, worry about rescuing? Or to tell people everything will be fine, so more people live near beaches, rivers and shores?

You sound like Sandy and Katrina victims don't suffer at all, as if you'd happily become one since being bailout is so easy and harmless. Or that you want them to suffer more (I do, can you say the same?).

 

[dude58677]

I wasn't alive Lincoln allegedly lived, so why should I believe he existed?

I was only going to reply until you showed me a test for global warming and I all ready to try it but it is clear you have no intention of doing so. The analogy is another pseudoscience characteristic of abuse of analogy. You have no test and use an analogy as an excuse. The analogy isn't even a good one because you have seen artifacts of Lincoln and the other thing is that history is not a science as it is not based on testing and hypothesis. You demonstrate there is no test and use a false analogy as an excuse.

I have you on ignore as you cannot prove your case because if you did you would not be here still debating and so are wasting my time.

 

[PRB]

I was only going to reply until you showed me a test for global warming and I all ready to try it but it is clear you have no intention of doing so. The analogy is another pseudoscience characteristic of abuse of analogy. You have no test and use an analogy as an excuse.

Tell me the difference. Tell me how and why you can know Lincoln existed. So I know how I can provide you with a test that comes close to your satisfaction, otherwise I can expect you'll just yell "That's not good enough, I didn't see it" for everything I tell you.

The analogy isn't even a good one because you have seen artifacts of Lincoln and the other thing is that history is not a science as it is not based on testing and hypothesis. You demonstrate there is no test and use a false analogy as an excuse.

Ah! So you mean to tell me that scientifically speaking, there's no good evidence Lincoln existed? Artifacts are not proof!

I have you on ignore as you cannot prove your case because if you did you would not be here still debating and so are wasting my time.

I won't ignore you, but feel free to if you can't debate the facts.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

... so if for nothing else, the government prefers to avoid having to help anybody.

The glorious leaders you love so much disagree with you:


"I’m also convinced we can help Americans return to the workforce faster by reforming unemployment insurance so that it’s more effective in today’s economy."

"...I want to work with Congress to see how we can help even more Americans who feel trapped by student loan debt."

--Barack Obama, State of the Union Address
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address


Together, we can help make sure that every family that walks into a restaurant can make an easy, healthy choice.”

--Michelle Obama, Comments to the National Restaurant Association
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...dress-national-restaurant-association-meeting

How near is near?

How high the moon?

How often should one be worried?

As often as the women on the afternoon talk shows tell you.

Are there safe seasons?

Yes, you should lift your new house to high ground every March, and return it later in the summer.

Is it better to live in the middle of no water at all?

Of course! You can always depend on city dwellers and government to pump the water from farmers!

Are Sandy and Katrina victims deserving of what they got prior to getting any bailout or assistance from government? Were they dipshits who should've known not to live there?

I have repeatedly addressed the point about people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs. If you don't want to address this point, then talk with countless home buyers who insist on having a riverfront view from their house.

Back to global warming being a hoax. What's the government's agenda?

I never said it was a hoax, so I don't know what you're talking about.

You sound like Sandy and Katrina victims don't suffer at all, as if you'd happily become one since being bailout is so easy and harmless.

I have repeatedly addressed the point about people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs. It is the dysfunctional enabling relationship between government and residents.

Or that you want them to suffer more (I do, can you say the same?).

I would hope that people don't suffer at all. I actually care about people in these situations. The difference between you and me is that I don't express my caring by demanding that others care and then implementing a care tax.

 

[PRB]

// repeat deleted

 

[PRB]

The glorious leaders you love so much disagree with you:


"I’m also convinced we can help Americans return to the workforce faster by reforming unemployment insurance so that it’s more effective in today’s economy."

"...I want to work with Congress to see how we can help even more Americans who feel trapped by student loan debt."

--Barack Obama, State of the Union Address
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address


Together, we can help make sure that every family that walks into a restaurant can make an easy, healthy choice.”

--Michelle Obama, Comments to the National Restaurant Association
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...dress-national-restaurant-association-meeting

And did you notice these are all addressing problems that already exist? Does any of this point to government wanted to create problems so they can come out and save people?

Do you think governments, whether Fascist, liberal, or communist, would prefer to subsidize jobs, destroy jobs, or create jobs, or let people create jobs? Which one would be the least work for the most benefit to government?

Answer : let people create jobs and tax them for it. Destroying jobs would not do that, creating jobs would be wasteful spending without benefit to government.

The government, of any ideology, has zero interest in helping people or saving people beyond what benefits them back.

 

[PRB]

I would hope that people don't suffer at all. I actually care about people in these situations. The difference between you and me is that I don't express my caring by demanding that others care and then implementing a care tax.

I don't demand anybody care other than getting facts and protecting themselves. I don't demand ANY tax, care tax or otherwise, so I don't know what you're talking about.

If you admit global warming isn't a hoax, then we can stop arguing.