Why we should listen to the 97%

[PMZ]

No. Human civilization is - roughly. And as it has grown over the years, it has gained...momentum and inertia. The mass of our infrastructure has made it less and less and less and less flexible. Seven thousand years ago, a slow flood such as we'll be experiencing in the next century, would hardly draw any notice. People could carry everything they owned on their back. They'd just pick it all up and move. Now, not so much.

Actually, what you describe is conservative progress. No civilization, no government, no education, no energy, no laws, only wandering warring tribes. But unlimited freedom to live miserable lives, and low taxes.

Sounds like just what you want...

It's the conservative dream of perfect freedom.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC is a 3 percenter

 

[Abraham3]

The fatal flaw in libtard "logic" is equating society and civilization with government. The two things are opposites, not synonyms.

Are they?

Here, Patrick. For once, educate yourself:

Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Government is a parasite on civilization. It always has been.

Let's look at how that article defines civilization:

Civilization or civilisation generally refers to polities which combine three basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings.[1: ^ Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, Cambridge University Press, 1986, vol.1 pp.34-41.]

And to make certain we're all on the same footing here, from Wikipedia's link on the word: A polity is a state or one of its subordinate civil authorities, such as a province, prefecture, county, municipality, city, or district. It is generally understood to mean a geographic area with a corresponding government.[1: See: Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., West Publishing Co., (1968), and Uricich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E. 2d 413.]

You need to do at least one of a few things Patrick: tell us what other definition you're using for the word "CIVILIZATION" or dispute all of that. Just calling it bullshit will not do.

I think there's actually a great deal more that you need to do. When you asked whether or not building the pyramids was good for the serfs who did the grunt labor, you make a ridiculously oversimplified and therefore tremendously flawed picture of the role of government. Even in the days of the pyramids, government did a great deal more than build its own tombs. And while it might make a nifty mental image, it'd be a great deal more pertinent to look at modern governments - those that might or might not actually deal with climate change.

The purpose of a government is the governance of a state or community. To govern is to use established systems and institutions to determine, put into effect and enforce policies by which the state or community is ruled. In our case and that of most of the world's states, it is the administration of the rule of law.

You seem to be of the opinion that all governments are purely self-serving vehicles for the abuse and oppression of their citizenry. There are certainly examples of such governments, but to suggest ALL are of this ilk is unsupportable. We are ruled by a democracy. Our presidents are selected by the populace and rule for finite periods. Their ability to remain in office for more than a single term is dependent entirely on convincing the public that they have been well-served (whether or not, in fact, they have been so served). And even if they do convince the public of their qualities, they get no more than two terms. The powers of any given government employee, whether elected, appointed or simply hired, are defined and restricted by a wealth of statute and code, all descendant and dependent from the Constitution on high. Ours system of governance is not perfect - no government is - but neither is it one rife with corruption or ripe for abuse.

I suspect that you lean towards the maxim that those governments govern best that govern least - at least in the case of liberal administrations led by black democrats. But, given the purely hypothetical assertion (;-)) that the government has a responsibility to take action where it sees threats to the health, safety and well-being of the people who elected it to perform just such duties, we cannot fault the government for responding - within its Constitutional bounds - when a reasonable case is made for the existence of a significant threat. Global warming is just such a threat. It presents the risk of extensive human suffering. It presents the promise of horrendous costs - particularly as our response becomes more and more delayed. It does illustrate that we will never have enough information to act without some risk of costly overreaction or withhold action without somerisk of inviting even costlier calamity. Unfortunately, that lack of certitude does not alleviate government from their duties to the public. They must constantly keep a watchful eye on the world around us, both synthetic and natural, and decide when a potential threat passes the threshold requiring a response. By any measure, anthropogenic global warming long ago passed such a threshold.

And yet, while an objective view, as fully informed as our current state would allow, would conclude that this government has delayed overlong, new information, new knowledge, appears to have given us a break. And let me emphasize "appears". It now appears that a long term cycle exists in the warming process. This cycle, in addition to explosive aerosols and wartime cutbacks, would have been responsible for the dramatic cooling between 1941 and 1979. And this cycle, in addition to increased vulcanism, a strongly negative ENSO and a decrease in solar irradiance would be responsible for the current warming slowdown; begun just before the turn of the century.

What does this change? How has the threat changed? Has it disappeared? Has it weakened? Has its onset been delayed? Or is it actually become worse? The risk in making the wrong decision has not gone away. We have not been provided a beneficent epiphany but simply a few more pieces to a now larger and more complex puzzle.

The current hiatus does not give us cause to reject greenhouse warming or reason to believe anything other than human consumption of fossil fuels is responsible for the rising levels of those gases. The accumulation of solar energy continues apace - it is simply being deposited elsewhere: the ocean. That does change the threat: from droughts, desertification, floods and habitat loss to rising sea levels: now likely to become the first parameter to reach severe values. And if recent history might guide us, when the PDO/ENSO cycle swings back, as it did in the 1980s and 90s, the air temperature will climb precipitously and the rate of increasing temperature and level of the world ocean will only slow, at best.

The government is not at fault, even for the harm you alone perceive us suffering. It is doing what it exists to do: protecting us. An objective analysis of the risks we face does not support your position. The odds of an event occurring and the actual cost of the occurrence are complimentary factors. Anger that our government is not omniscient cannot be justified. Chill and get with the party. AGW is real and it is a threat. We need to act.

 

[Snookie]

The fatal flaw in libtard "logic" is equating society and civilization with government. The two things are opposites, not synonyms.

Are they?

Here, Patrick. For once, educate yourself:

Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Government is a parasite on civilization. It always has been.

Hell yeah, we need to go back to tribalism.

 

[PMZ]

Are they?

Here, Patrick. For once, educate yourself:

Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Government is a parasite on civilization. It always has been.

Hell yeah, we need to go back to tribalism.

It seems that conservatives are stuck in some sort of hunter gatherer time warp which may be because that's the last time that they were successful at anything.

 

[PMZ]

Are they?

Here, Patrick. For once, educate yourself:

Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Government is a parasite on civilization. It always has been.

Let's look at how that article defines civilization:

Civilization or civilisation generally refers to polities which combine three basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings.[1: ^ Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, Cambridge University Press, 1986, vol.1 pp.34-41.]

And to make certain we're all on the same footing here, from Wikipedia's link on the word: A polity is a state or one of its subordinate civil authorities, such as a province, prefecture, county, municipality, city, or district. It is generally understood to mean a geographic area with a corresponding government.[1: See: Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., West Publishing Co., (1968), and Uricich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E. 2d 413.]

You need to do at least one of a few things Patrick: tell us what other definition you're using for the word "CIVILIZATION" or dispute all of that. Just calling it bullshit will not do.

I think there's actually a great deal more that you need to do. When you asked whether or not building the pyramids was good for the serfs who did the grunt labor, you make a ridiculously oversimplified and therefore tremendously flawed picture of the role of government. Even in the days of the pyramids, government did a great deal more than build its own tombs. And while it might make a nifty mental image, it'd be a great deal more pertinent to look at modern governments - those that might or might not actually deal with climate change.

The purpose of a government is the governance of a state or community. To govern is to use established systems and institutions to determine, put into effect and enforce policies by which the state or community is ruled. In our case and that of most of the world's states, it is the administration of the rule of law.

You seem to be of the opinion that all governments are purely self-serving vehicles for the abuse and oppression of their citizenry. There are certainly examples of such governments, but to suggest ALL are of this ilk is unsupportable. We are ruled by a democracy. Our presidents are selected by the populace and rule for finite periods. Their ability to remain in office for more than a single term is dependent entirely on convincing the public that they have been well-served (whether or not, in fact, they have been so served). And even if they do convince the public of their qualities, they get no more than two terms. The powers of any given government employee, whether elected, appointed or simply hired, are defined and restricted by a wealth of statute and code, all descendant and dependent from the Constitution on high. Ours system of governance is not perfect - no government is - but neither is it one rife with corruption or ripe for abuse.

I suspect that you lean towards the maxim that those governments govern best that govern least - at least in the case of liberal administrations led by black democrats. But, given the purely hypothetical assertion (;-)) that the government has a responsibility to take action where it sees threats to the health, safety and well-being of the people who elected it to perform just such duties, we cannot fault the government for responding - within its Constitutional bounds - when a reasonable case is made for the existence of a significant threat. Global warming is just such a threat. It presents the risk of extensive human suffering. It presents the promise of horrendous costs - particularly as our response becomes more and more delayed. It does illustrate that we will never have enough information to act without some risk of costly overreaction or withhold action without somerisk of inviting even costlier calamity. Unfortunately, that lack of certitude does not alleviate government from their duties to the public. They must constantly keep a watchful eye on the world around us, both synthetic and natural, and decide when a potential threat passes the threshold requiring a response. By any measure, anthropogenic global warming long ago passed such a threshold.

And yet, while an objective view, as fully informed as our current state would allow, would conclude that this government has delayed overlong, new information, new knowledge, appears to have given us a break. And let me emphasize "appears". It now appears that a long term cycle exists in the warming process. This cycle, in addition to explosive aerosols and wartime cutbacks, would have been responsible for the dramatic cooling between 1941 and 1979. And this cycle, in addition to increased vulcanism, a strongly negative ENSO and a decrease in solar irradiance would be responsible for the current warming slowdown; begun just before the turn of the century.

What does this change? How has the threat changed? Has it disappeared? Has it weakened? Has its onset been delayed? Or is it actually become worse? The risk in making the wrong decision has not gone away. We have not been provided a beneficent epiphany but simply a few more pieces to a now larger and more complex puzzle.

The current hiatus does not give us cause to reject greenhouse warming or reason to believe anything other than human consumption of fossil fuels is responsible for the rising levels of those gases. The accumulation of solar energy continues apace - it is simply being deposited elsewhere: the ocean. That does change the threat: from droughts, desertification, floods and habitat loss to rising sea levels: now likely to become the first parameter to reach severe values. And if recent history might guide us, when the PDO/ENSO cycle swings back, as it did in the 1980s and 90s, the air temperature will climb precipitously and the rate of increasing temperature and level of the world ocean will only slow, at best.

The government is not at fault, even for the harm you alone perceive us suffering. It is doing what it exists to do: protecting us. An objective analysis of the risks we face does not support your position. The odds of an event occurring and the actual cost of the occurrence are complimentary factors. Anger that our government is not omniscient cannot be justified. Chill and get with the party. AGW is real and it is a threat. We need to act.

For sure denial of AGW, and avoidance of solutions to it, are only symptoms of the much more destructive foundation of conservative, which is the every man for himself culture that predated civilization. No government, no specialization, no community, no law, no organization, no imagining and planning to create a more desirable future. In fact, non of the things that separate humanity from all other life. Their goal really is nothing less than the destruction of civilization. The natural question really is, why can't they see that what allows them the comfort of being able to even think that nonsense is civilization. Without it instead of thinking they'd be entirely consumed with surviving.

 

[PMZ]

IPCC is a 3 percenter

You seem to believe that you are in a position to comprehend IPCC science. What are your qualifications?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure that this post is record breaking idiocy.

"Pretty sure" but not totally sure?

What did government ever contribute to society? Do you think pyramids were beneficial for all the serfs who built them?

Now, this is the new record.

You didn't answer the question. How did the grunts who built the pyramids benefit from them? How did the ziggurates? How did they benefit from palaces? How did they benefit from taxation?

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Government is a parasite on civilization. It always has been.

Let's look at how that article defines civilization:

Civilization or civilisation generally refers to polities which combine three basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings.[1: ^ Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, Cambridge University Press, 1986, vol.1 pp.34-41.]

And to make certain we're all on the same footing here, from Wikipedia's link on the word: A polity is a state or one of its subordinate civil authorities, such as a province, prefecture, county, municipality, city, or district. It is generally understood to mean a geographic area with a corresponding government.[1: See: Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., West Publishing Co., (1968), and Uricich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E. 2d 413.]

You need to do at least one of a few things Patrick: tell us what other definition you're using for the word "CIVILIZATION" or dispute all of that. Just calling it bullshit will not do.

I think there's actually a great deal more that you need to do. When you asked whether or not building the pyramids was good for the serfs who did the grunt labor, you make a ridiculously oversimplified and therefore tremendously flawed picture of the role of government. Even in the days of the pyramids, government did a great deal more than build its own tombs. And while it might make a nifty mental image, it'd be a great deal more pertinent to look at modern governments - those that might or might not actually deal with climate change.

The purpose of a government is the governance of a state or community. To govern is to use established systems and institutions to determine, put into effect and enforce policies by which the state or community is ruled. In our case and that of most of the world's states, it is the administration of the rule of law.

You seem to be of the opinion that all governments are purely self-serving vehicles for the abuse and oppression of their citizenry. There are certainly examples of such governments, but to suggest ALL are of this ilk is unsupportable. We are ruled by a democracy. Our presidents are selected by the populace and rule for finite periods. Their ability to remain in office for more than a single term is dependent entirely on convincing the public that they have been well-served (whether or not, in fact, they have been so served). And even if they do convince the public of their qualities, they get no more than two terms. The powers of any given government employee, whether elected, appointed or simply hired, are defined and restricted by a wealth of statute and code, all descendant and dependent from the Constitution on high. Ours system of governance is not perfect - no government is - but neither is it one rife with corruption or ripe for abuse.

I suspect that you lean towards the maxim that those governments govern best that govern least - at least in the case of liberal administrations led by black democrats. But, given the purely hypothetical assertion (;-)) that the government has a responsibility to take action where it sees threats to the health, safety and well-being of the people who elected it to perform just such duties, we cannot fault the government for responding - within its Constitutional bounds - when a reasonable case is made for the existence of a significant threat. Global warming is just such a threat. It presents the risk of extensive human suffering. It presents the promise of horrendous costs - particularly as our response becomes more and more delayed. It does illustrate that we will never have enough information to act without some risk of costly overreaction or withhold action without somerisk of inviting even costlier calamity. Unfortunately, that lack of certitude does not alleviate government from their duties to the public. They must constantly keep a watchful eye on the world around us, both synthetic and natural, and decide when a potential threat passes the threshold requiring a response. By any measure, anthropogenic global warming long ago passed such a threshold.

And yet, while an objective view, as fully informed as our current state would allow, would conclude that this government has delayed overlong, new information, new knowledge, appears to have given us a break. And let me emphasize "appears". It now appears that a long term cycle exists in the warming process. This cycle, in addition to explosive aerosols and wartime cutbacks, would have been responsible for the dramatic cooling between 1941 and 1979. And this cycle, in addition to increased vulcanism, a strongly negative ENSO and a decrease in solar irradiance would be responsible for the current warming slowdown; begun just before the turn of the century.

What does this change? How has the threat changed? Has it disappeared? Has it weakened? Has its onset been delayed? Or is it actually become worse? The risk in making the wrong decision has not gone away. We have not been provided a beneficent epiphany but simply a few more pieces to a now larger and more complex puzzle.

The current hiatus does not give us cause to reject greenhouse warming or reason to believe anything other than human consumption of fossil fuels is responsible for the rising levels of those gases. The accumulation of solar energy continues apace - it is simply being deposited elsewhere: the ocean. That does change the threat: from droughts, desertification, floods and habitat loss to rising sea levels: now likely to become the first parameter to reach severe values. And if recent history might guide us, when the PDO/ENSO cycle swings back, as it did in the 1980s and 90s, the air temperature will climb precipitously and the rate of increasing temperature and level of the world ocean will only slow, at best.

The government is not at fault, even for the harm you alone perceive us suffering. It is doing what it exists to do: protecting us. An objective analysis of the risks we face does not support your position. The odds of an event occurring and the actual cost of the occurrence are complimentary factors. Anger that our government is not omniscient cannot be justified. Chill and get with the party. AGW is real and it is a threat. We need to act.

For sure denial of AGW, and avoidance of solutions to it, are only symptoms of the much more destructive foundation of conservative, which is the every man for himself culture that predated civilization. No government, no specialization, no community, no law, no organization, no imagining and planning to create a more desirable future. In fact, non of the things that separate humanity from all other life.

That's all bullshit. The only thing they didn't have was government. The idea that people can't form communities without government is pure idiocy.

Their goal really is nothing less than the destruction of civilization. The natural question really is, why can't they see that what allows them the comfort of being able to even think that nonsense is civilization. Without it instead of thinking they'd be entirely consumed with surviving.

Government is not civilization. The government has brainwashed drones like you to believe you can't live without it. The truth is somewhat different.

 

[PMZ]

Let's look at how that article defines civilization:

Civilization or civilisation generally refers to polities which combine three basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings.[1: ^ Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, Cambridge University Press, 1986, vol.1 pp.34-41.]

And to make certain we're all on the same footing here, from Wikipedia's link on the word: A polity is a state or one of its subordinate civil authorities, such as a province, prefecture, county, municipality, city, or district. It is generally understood to mean a geographic area with a corresponding government.[1: See: Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., West Publishing Co., (1968), and Uricich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E. 2d 413.]

You need to do at least one of a few things Patrick: tell us what other definition you're using for the word "CIVILIZATION" or dispute all of that. Just calling it bullshit will not do.

I think there's actually a great deal more that you need to do. When you asked whether or not building the pyramids was good for the serfs who did the grunt labor, you make a ridiculously oversimplified and therefore tremendously flawed picture of the role of government. Even in the days of the pyramids, government did a great deal more than build its own tombs. And while it might make a nifty mental image, it'd be a great deal more pertinent to look at modern governments - those that might or might not actually deal with climate change.

The purpose of a government is the governance of a state or community. To govern is to use established systems and institutions to determine, put into effect and enforce policies by which the state or community is ruled. In our case and that of most of the world's states, it is the administration of the rule of law.

You seem to be of the opinion that all governments are purely self-serving vehicles for the abuse and oppression of their citizenry. There are certainly examples of such governments, but to suggest ALL are of this ilk is unsupportable. We are ruled by a democracy. Our presidents are selected by the populace and rule for finite periods. Their ability to remain in office for more than a single term is dependent entirely on convincing the public that they have been well-served (whether or not, in fact, they have been so served). And even if they do convince the public of their qualities, they get no more than two terms. The powers of any given government employee, whether elected, appointed or simply hired, are defined and restricted by a wealth of statute and code, all descendant and dependent from the Constitution on high. Ours system of governance is not perfect - no government is - but neither is it one rife with corruption or ripe for abuse.

I suspect that you lean towards the maxim that those governments govern best that govern least - at least in the case of liberal administrations led by black democrats. But, given the purely hypothetical assertion (;-)) that the government has a responsibility to take action where it sees threats to the health, safety and well-being of the people who elected it to perform just such duties, we cannot fault the government for responding - within its Constitutional bounds - when a reasonable case is made for the existence of a significant threat. Global warming is just such a threat. It presents the risk of extensive human suffering. It presents the promise of horrendous costs - particularly as our response becomes more and more delayed. It does illustrate that we will never have enough information to act without some risk of costly overreaction or withhold action without somerisk of inviting even costlier calamity. Unfortunately, that lack of certitude does not alleviate government from their duties to the public. They must constantly keep a watchful eye on the world around us, both synthetic and natural, and decide when a potential threat passes the threshold requiring a response. By any measure, anthropogenic global warming long ago passed such a threshold.

And yet, while an objective view, as fully informed as our current state would allow, would conclude that this government has delayed overlong, new information, new knowledge, appears to have given us a break. And let me emphasize "appears". It now appears that a long term cycle exists in the warming process. This cycle, in addition to explosive aerosols and wartime cutbacks, would have been responsible for the dramatic cooling between 1941 and 1979. And this cycle, in addition to increased vulcanism, a strongly negative ENSO and a decrease in solar irradiance would be responsible for the current warming slowdown; begun just before the turn of the century.

What does this change? How has the threat changed? Has it disappeared? Has it weakened? Has its onset been delayed? Or is it actually become worse? The risk in making the wrong decision has not gone away. We have not been provided a beneficent epiphany but simply a few more pieces to a now larger and more complex puzzle.

The current hiatus does not give us cause to reject greenhouse warming or reason to believe anything other than human consumption of fossil fuels is responsible for the rising levels of those gases. The accumulation of solar energy continues apace - it is simply being deposited elsewhere: the ocean. That does change the threat: from droughts, desertification, floods and habitat loss to rising sea levels: now likely to become the first parameter to reach severe values. And if recent history might guide us, when the PDO/ENSO cycle swings back, as it did in the 1980s and 90s, the air temperature will climb precipitously and the rate of increasing temperature and level of the world ocean will only slow, at best.

The government is not at fault, even for the harm you alone perceive us suffering. It is doing what it exists to do: protecting us. An objective analysis of the risks we face does not support your position. The odds of an event occurring and the actual cost of the occurrence are complimentary factors. Anger that our government is not omniscient cannot be justified. Chill and get with the party. AGW is real and it is a threat. We need to act.

For sure denial of AGW, and avoidance of solutions to it, are only symptoms of the much more destructive foundation of conservative, which is the every man for himself culture that predated civilization. No government, no specialization, no community, no law, no organization, no imagining and planning to create a more desirable future. In fact, non of the things that separate humanity from all other life.

That's all bullshit. The only thing they didn't have was government. The idea that people can't form communities without government is pure idiocy.

Their goal really is nothing less than the destruction of civilization. The natural question really is, why can't they see that what allows them the comfort of being able to even think that nonsense is civilization. Without it instead of thinking they'd be entirely consumed with surviving.

Government is not civilization. The government has brainwashed drones like you to believe you can't live without it. The truth is somewhat different.

I thought that anarchism was defeated even before communism.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Government is a parasite on civilization. It always has been.

I think there's actually a great deal more that you need to do. When you asked whether or not building the pyramids was good for the serfs who did the grunt labor, you make a ridiculously oversimplified and therefore tremendously flawed picture of the role of government. Even in the days of the pyramids, government did a great deal more than build its own tombs. And while it might make a nifty mental image, it'd be a great deal more pertinent to look at modern governments - those that might or might not actually deal with climate change.

So what did the government of Egypt do that benefited the serfs who built the pyramids?

The purpose of a government is the governance of a state or community. To govern is to use established systems and institutions to determine, put into effect and enforce policies by which the state or community is ruled. In our case and that of most of the world's states, it is the administration of the rule of law.

In other words, the purpose of government is to govern.

BRILLIANT!

You seem to be of the opinion that all governments are purely self-serving vehicles for the abuse and oppression of their citizenry.

Exactly!

There are certainly examples of such governments, but to suggest ALL are of this ilk is unsupportable.

There is no other kind of government.

We are ruled by a democracy. Our presidents are selected by the populace and rule for finite periods. Their ability to remain in office for more than a single term is dependent entirely on convincing the public that they have been well-served (whether or not, in fact, they have been so served). And even if they do convince the public of their qualities, they get no more than two terms.

They only have to convince a sufficient number of voters to vote for them, not the entire population. They do this by promising them loot that they rob from the people who earned it. Politicians in a Democracy have no stake in the long term well being of the country or the jurisdiction they govern. They only have an interest in getting reelected. Almost everything they do sacrifices the long term well being of the country to pay off parasites (their constituents).

The powers of any given government employee, whether elected, appointed or simply hired, are defined and restricted by a wealth of statute and code, all descendant and dependent from the Constitution on high. Ours system of governance is not perfect - no government is - but neither is it one rife with corruption or ripe for abuse.

ROLF! Sorry, but any rational person observing the current carnage in Washington could never believe such a naive statement.

That's about all the energy I have for dealing with your post for now. Perhaps I'll respond to the rest of it some other time.

 

[bripat9643]

Science doesn't know if controlled fusion ls possible.

It's far more confident of that than whether it can ever make wind and solar economical feasible. Several projects are close to producing net positive power output. However, they aren't economical. There's hardly any doubt that within 20-30 years they will have economical fusion power generation.



Global population is already on a trend that means it will start declining in the middle of this century.



Whoever claimed it was "free?" However, even at $100/bbl, oil is still far cheaper than any of the pipe dreams you want to force us all to pay for.

AGW denial is only a political delusion that you are unequipped to defend yourself from. The rest of us choose to live in the real world.

I can barely stop myself from laughing out loud every time you post that you are living in the real world.

You are funny. You are confident in controlled fusion which has never been achieved in a useful way but uncertain about wind and solar that are being built everyday all over the world.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Wind and Solar power have never demonstrated the ability to power an industrial economy. Given the evidence we have so far, they never will.

We have 200 years to perfect fusion power. I think our scientists are up to the task.

 

[Abraham3]

"Pretty sure" but not totally sure?

What did government ever contribute to society? Do you think pyramids were beneficial for all the serfs who built them?

Now, this is the new record.

You didn't answer the question. How did the grunts who built the pyramids benefit from them? How did the ziggurates? How did they benefit from palaces? How did they benefit from taxation?

Building the pyramids is not synonymous with government. The government provided protection from foreign invaders. It provided shelter, roads, water supplies. While they were working on the pyramid, they were fed by the government. The Egyptians had laws, courts, police. Their government provided them many of the comforts modern humans receive.

The ziggurates did not benefit from the pyramids unless they provided a dramatic backdrop. All of those structures provided permanence and coherence to their social order. It likely aided them in maintaining their faith in their rulers and their gods. How are you benefited by the rifle in your closet and the cross around your neck?

 

[PMZ]

It's far more confident of that than whether it can ever make wind and solar economical feasible. Several projects are close to producing net positive power output. However, they aren't economical. There's hardly any doubt that within 20-30 years they will have economical fusion power generation.



Global population is already on a trend that means it will start declining in the middle of this century.



Whoever claimed it was "free?" However, even at $100/bbl, oil is still far cheaper than any of the pipe dreams you want to force us all to pay for.



I can barely stop myself from laughing out loud every time you post that you are living in the real world.

You are funny. You are confident in controlled fusion which has never been achieved in a useful way but uncertain about wind and solar that are being built everyday all over the world.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Wind and Solar power have never demonstrated the ability to power an industrial economy. Given the evidence we have so far, they never will.

We have 200 years to perfect fusion power. I think our scientists are up to the task.

To whom do you think that your scientific or engineering opinions matter?

 

[PMZ]

It's far more confident of that than whether it can ever make wind and solar economical feasible. Several projects are close to producing net positive power output. However, they aren't economical. There's hardly any doubt that within 20-30 years they will have economical fusion power generation.



Global population is already on a trend that means it will start declining in the middle of this century.



Whoever claimed it was "free?" However, even at $100/bbl, oil is still far cheaper than any of the pipe dreams you want to force us all to pay for.



I can barely stop myself from laughing out loud every time you post that you are living in the real world.

You are funny. You are confident in controlled fusion which has never been achieved in a useful way but uncertain about wind and solar that are being built everyday all over the world.

Wind and Solar power have never demonstrated the ability to power an industrial economy. Given the evidence we have so far, they never will.

We have 200 years to perfect fusion power. I think our scientists are up to the task.

''Wind and Solar power have never demonstrated the ability to power an industrial economy.''

They are doing it today.

''We have 200 years to perfect fusion power.''

What if it fails? What if the demand for the dregs of oil drive the cost to $1000 per barrel. What if we're already at an AGW tipping point with disastrous consequences.

You are delusional if you think that we have, 200 years to develop controlled fusion.

 

[PMZ]

I suppose that if you are an anarchist and despise civilization, putting it at risk by ignoring our energy future make sense.

 

[PredFan]

Why should we listen to the 97%?

Because I'm part of the 97%.

Now, listen to me:

Socialism can never work and has never worked.
Welfare and food stamps should ONLY be temporary and anyone who get's pregnant and gives birth while on welfare or food stamps should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Guns are legal and a guaranteed right to all Americans.
Every voter should be required to pass a test before allowed to vote.
All corporate welfare should be abolished.
The FairTax should be the law of the land.
Civil Unions should have all of the rights and privilages of marriages.
All illegal aliens should be deported. Children of these aliens born here can stay upon evaluation on an individual case by case basis.
Drugs should be legal.
The Department of Education should be abolished.
Obama should be impeached.
Nancy Pelosi should be jailed.
We should close all of our embasies in the Middle East, arm Israel to the teeth and tell them to call us when they are done.
Pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and any Asscrackistan, and mercilessly blow up any Al-Queda training camps we identify, to hell with asking permission.
We should begin fracking immediately, and build the pipeline that obama killed.
We should build several hundred more nuclear power plants in this country.
We should pull out of the UN and sent them packing.
Of course, we should abolish obamacare.

I am the 97% LISTEN TO ME!

 

[PMZ]

Why should we listen to the 97%?

Because I'm part of the 97%.

Now, listen to me:

Socialism can never work and has never worked.
Welfare and food stamps should ONLY be temporary and anyone who get's pregnant and gives birth while on welfare or food stamps should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Guns are legal and a guaranteed right to all Americans.
Every voter should be required to pass a test before allowed to vote.
All corporate welfare should be abolished.
The FairTax should be the law of the land.
Civil Unions should have all of the rights and privilages of marriages.
All illegal aliens should be deported. Children of these aliens born here can stay upon evaluation on an individual case by case basis.
Drugs should be legal.
The Department of Education should be abolished.
Obama should be impeached.
Nancy Pelosi should be jailed.
We should close all of our embasies in the Middle East, arm Israel to the teeth and tell them to call us when they are done.
Pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and any Asscrackistan, and mercilessly blow up any Al-Queda training camps we identify, to hell with asking permission.
We should begin fracking immediately, and build the pipeline that obama killed.
We should build several hundred more nuclear power plants in this country.
We should pull out of the UN and sent them packing.
Of course, we should abolish obamacare.

I am the 97% LISTEN TO ME!

Nice recital of the gospel according to FOX.

I agree that you are 97 percent of the problems with this country and offer 0 percent of the solutions that we need.

That’s why democracy is sending you packing.

We have seen enough of your crap.

Every thing that you touch turns to crap. Most recently the House of Representatives. Before that, the Whitehouse.

 

[PMZ]

There is no better example of Dunning-Kruger than the GOP being unable to even recognize the extent of their decades of failure. It's like like their strategy to destroy the country is to make their role in government incompetent.

What they are being taught of course is that they might ignore their failures but the American electorate doesn't.

No matter how hard Fox and Rush and The Donald campaign for Republicans, what the electorate sees is pure incompetence. The worst President in our history followed by a House majority that has accomplished absolutely nothing for years.

 

[Abraham3]

There is no better example of Dunning-Kruger than the GOP being unable to even recognize the extent of their decades of failure. It's like like their strategy to destroy the country is to make their role in government incompetent.

What they are being taught of course is that they might ignore their failures but the American electorate doesn't.

No matter how hard Fox and Rush and The Donald campaign for Republicans, what the electorate sees is pure incompetence. The worst President in our history followed by a House majority that has accomplished absolutely nothing for years.

This is off-topic, but...

If you want government to run well, it might not be a good idea to vote for someone who thinks government itself is a bad thing and should be eliminated. They have announced in advance they will do as bad a job as they can manage.