Yankees29

Members
  • Content Count

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Yankees29

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was in Oxford during the 2013 monster & we had 33" (airport reported 36). You didn't get thumped?
  2. I think we all know what that means.
  3. What JB actually said was, "...it's going to take some things to go right for it to snow." He was not predicting a snowstorm, just showing the potential.
  4. Denver is not really a "snow" area. My kid works in Aspen and the mountains get whacked even when it's partly cloudy.
  5. . Here are 3 points that got my attention. 1) I was surprised that only 93% agreed that climate is changing. I would have expected closer to 100%. Climate is changing - always has - always will. 2) When the question was asked, can anything be done to ameliorate it going forward, the study reported that there were a wide range of answers with over half basically saying "yes". 3) Here's the kicker. There is a misunderstanding about the major hot-button issue concerning climate change which is the role of CO2. On that issue the study lumped CO2 emissions in with other man-made factors. The CO2 issue stands alone (IMO) because it is the single issue that is being used by various political entities including the UN where their "solution" is to impose massive environmental controls and taxes to "solve" the problem. The narrative has switched away from the CO2 issue to "climate change" and since very few (including me) will deny "climate change" there is a back-door acceptance of CO2 as the culprit and hence the potential for a dramatic overhaul of the world's economies. I've debated with one of my friends about the issue and his response to my pointing out the CO2 fallacy was to say, "What about all the pollution from China and other places." What he doesn't (or won't) get is that what he refers to has nothing to do with the CO2 issue.
  6. Show me the data that "all these entities" are on one side. Have you looked at the "other side" ? Here's what fascinates me. People feel strongly each way, yet only one side is claiming that the debate is over; that there is -- in effect -- no viable "other side". That in and of itself is a red flag. And, by the way, it's not the scientific community who is labeling the "other" side as "deniers", it's the political community and those who follow it. Even someone like JB looks at both sides and presents both in his book.
  7. The folks angling for the wealth, power, and control to which I refer are at upper levels of governments in many countries, not academia. Their purpose is to establish laws controlling carbon emissions, establishing taxes and penalties on business and eventually individuals in order to do so. Governments control the grant process. Research how many scientists get awarded grants that are not in lock step with the government narrative. You need to dig deeper and listen to "the other side". No one is denying climate change. The "conflict" is about what is causing it and what to do about it. .
  8. It's not WHO is right. It's WHAT is right. Reality isn't determine by a vote, and btw, the claim that 97% of scientists support(ed) AGW was false anyway. Here's a clue to follow. When the supporters of any issue cast the opposition with pejoratives (deniers), claim that the issue is settled, and refuse to debate, something is, shall we say, amiss. When politicians are also jumping on the issue, then making investments in companies that seek to exploit the issue (Gore- carbon rights trading) - another indicator. And the fact that governments are on board, gee, I wonder what they could hope to gain?
  9. Think in practical terms. The issues would create a pandora's box beyond even my wildest imagination. Just for starters: Who would get reparations? How much would each person get? How much would it cost the American taxpayer? Assuming we're talking only about black folks, would some get more than others, e.g. based on direct ties to a history of slavery? Would any other minorities seek reparations? Native Americans? Would it extend overseas, e.g. Jews seeking reparations for the Holocaust ? Armenians seeking reparations for the Turkish massacres? Muslims and the Crusades? Any of the other groups who have endured similar atrocities through history? Bottom line for me is that while the sentiment is understandable, particularly when you look at the suffering of individuals, it simply isn't reasonably doable without creating more problems and resentments that you would fix.
  10. "Society" is a collection of individuals. "Society" pays nothing. Individuals pay.
  11. "Product" of the past... no. Influenced by it, of course. I don't "disavow" the past. I do quite a bit to deal with injustice - in the present. The problem with (as is now the case) trying to legislate to "correct" the past is that it creates injustices in the present. Injustice must be viewed as it applies to individuals, not to groups. To apply it to groups (racial, ethnic, or otherwise) will, of necessity create injustices for individuals in the present. Then how do we fix those in the future? Look, very little pisses me off more than the racial history of our country. Trying to fix that in some way is unfortunately not possible, but creating more injustice isn't the solution.
  12. You're dealing with what for me is a slippery slope. On the one hand the abuses, the prejudice, the evils committed in the past are reprehensible to me. On the other hand I am strongly opposed to the idea that I have responsibility for my "grandfather's" sins. Re: voter suppression, clearly wrong and needs to be stopped, however, requiring proof that one is in fact a citizen of this country is absolutely proper as long as there is not a restrictive covenant to voting involved. Finally, it is a mistake to use broad-brush labels such as "right-wingers", leftists, et al as if to suggest that all members of any group -- political or otherwise -- all feel the same way about every issue. As far as students coming to a liberal conclusion -- fine - -as long as they have all the facts and are not intimidated by their profs as is the case at my university. Do you think that students are presented with, or are asked to comment about the blatant contradiction when liberals say "No one is above the law," when dealing with Trump's impeachment while they support sanctuary cities? Sanctuary from what? Oh yeah, the law.