We are entering the twilight zone of politics...

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (75 posts)
  1. jackclee lm profile image80
    jackclee lmposted 5 months ago

    The latest green new deal is one example of common sense going out the window.
    We have serious politicians and political commentators and media types talking seriously about this. How is this possible?
    What is in the air and water that allow this to carry on...?
    The proposals are so extreme and over the top, there is no starting point for discussion.
    It should go into the trash bin of history...

    If anyone is serious about combating climate change, you must first learn the science.
    This topic is much more complex than Al Gore and climate scientists realize.
    They are only scratching the surface...
    The problem is complex and the solutions are illusive.
    It is the ultimate hubris on the part of some that think we can change the weather or climate. This phenonmenon has been around forever and past cycles have shown there are numerous natural cycles at work here. There are ice ages that occur every 100,000 years or so. There is a cycle of 400 years for drought. There is a 60 year cycle due to our sister planet of Saturn, there is a 11 year cycle of sun spots...and many more...
    All these cycles interact like waves of different frequency. You will get troughs and peaks as a result. Can we tell by looking at the last 100 years since the industrial revolution to know what is going on? Not really...

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Just give us all an explanation of how climate change really works, Jack. Those dang scientists can't hold a candle to your research and studies, and how could they?

      1. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        You don’t have to believe me.
        Those proposals as outlined in the Green New Deal is as Cuomo say...”pie in the sky...”
        They are not realistic.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Correct Jack, you're the only realistic person studying the subject.  Those scientists are simply pulling the wool over our eyes because....er…..why do they do it now? Someone is paying them to stir up this mess and all of them are on the payroll, correct?

          1. jackclee lm profile image80
            jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Well,  if your research funding is tied to the study of climate change, guess what all their research is on climate change.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Yeah sure, Jack. It is the biggest secret of all since literally thousands of scientists are in on it.


              But you Jack, being the self proclaimed climate genius you are, will get to the bottom of the scam where everyone else has failed.  You are indeed great....

              1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Jack:  George W.  Changed the wording from Global Warming to Climate change.  It is a hard sell because we have so much cold and severe weather in the U.S.  However Global Warming is about the world's ocean temperature becoming warmer.  That is a scientific fact.  The other thing that is a scientific fact is that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at an alarming rate.  Scientist have proven it is the highest it has been in the last 650,000 years, by studying ice core samples.
                Please read this article;

                https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/k … proof.html

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Hey there peoplepower73. This may seem like a criticism, but it is really just an effort to take a political bias out of your response.

                  George W. Bush was not responsible for changing climate warming to climate change. While there are stories that his administration preferred the latter term, the actual change came from climate scientists.

                  I know that you can Google it as well as I did, so no links, but here is just a short blurb that sort of dates the change:

                  "Even years before that, international institutions had paved the way for “climate change” to eventually become the prevalent term. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was negotiated in 1992, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988."

                  Your other scientific facts are correct, so I just thought it would be helpful to make this "fact" correct too. I wouldn't suppose you intended to pair the Republicans with the change, but that is how your comment read.

                  I did read your link, and I don't think there can be any dispute about the CO2 levels, however, I think I recall that among climate change deniers there is a dispute as to CO2 carrying sole responsibility for climate warming.

                  Just sayin'

                  GA

                  1. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    The problem is if you go back millions of years, the earth had much higher CO2 concentration...how do you explain that?
                    Did you know Greenland had a much moderate climate in the distant past.
                    Why do you think it was called greenland?

                    The problem is, the current warming trend is within the natural variability of the earth...it cannot be determined it is caused by human activity, even if part of it was, it is not the primary driver. The sun is the ultimate source of energy an it has variability that affect our climate to a larger extent than humans...

              2. crankalicious profile image91
                crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Randy,

                All those climate scientists are just wrong. Surfing the internet and doing your own research will bring you to the real truth.

                Can you imagine applying that logic to all topics? I'm sure bias will have no effect. Did you know the earth is flat? I found it on the internet!

                https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Freq … _Questions

                And by the way, did you know that the sun revolves around the earth? One in four Americans believe this, so it must be true.

                https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way … urvey-says

                https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-princ … looks-like

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Wow! So Jack WAS right?  tongue

                  1. crankalicious profile image91
                    crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, he's super-smart. Super duper!

                  2. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Stop your condecension...why don’t you do a little digging and see how this global warming has been politicized. It is not the scientists driving the agenda but the political hacks. You and others have been brain washed to beliving everything. Stop and use your own eye and ears and common sense if you still have any left.

                2. profile image76
                  Hxprofposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Here's more information for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74f7BSUhulk

    2. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Oh yes, and it bewilders me... Not to mention scarce me.

      1. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Don’t be scared. The world will be fine, with or without global warming.
        The reason is simple. We are put here by God to be the good steward.
        He will provide all we need to take good care of us and the animals and the environment.
        With every aspect of science, I am convinced we are not here by accident.
        Not evolution but by intelligent design.
        Everything has a purpose and an order.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image93
          peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Jack:  How about all the severe weather that wipes out  thousands of people globally every year and it is getting worse?  I'm curious to know why God would ordain that?  The seas are getting higher and coastal seaboards are not even safe anymore because of the severe weather?  What is God's purpose and order of that?

          1. jackclee lm profile image80
            jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Check out my hub on extreme weather of the past 200 years...
            People have a short memory but fortunately, we have The old Farmers almanac...
            Extreme weather is a fact of life.
            We always had them since the dawn of time, remember the great flood...
            To think we are causing these events is the height of hubris...

            1. peoplepower73 profile image93
              peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Jack:  Yes, but this is what you said about God: "He will provide all we need to take good care of us and the animals and the environment."  In my view, he hasn't done that.  So if he hasn't done that then why do we have all of these crisis?

              1. jackclee lm profile image80
                jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                To you it is a crisis but to God, which we have no idea of his intent, perhaps it is exactly what he wants. Did Noah know why he was building the Arc?

                All I am saying God provided the animals and plants and the natural resources like fossil fuel for us to use.
                When the right time comes, it will be replaced with the next big thing...
                It is not up to us to decide to stop using fossil fuel just because it creates global warming based on human theory...

                1. jackclee lm profile image80
                  jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Here is my article on extreme weather of the past...

                  “hubpages.com/education/Extreme-Weather-from-the-Past”

                  This proofs that we are not living in a extreme new world of global warming...if anything, we are probably going into a cooling cycle with the sun being inactive recent years.
                  Check out the sunspot cycle...it comes every 11 years...and they have been very quiet.

                2. peoplepower73 profile image93
                  peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Jack: What other kind of theory is there other than human theory?  So it's up to God to decide when it is time to quit using fossil fuel?  Didn't God create us so that we could make decisions on are own? 

                  If you consider that man is part of nature, then whatever man decides is also natural. I like to think the universe is unfolding as it should and we are part of that natural order. 

                  If it is proven that green house gas creates warmer temperatures, which in turn leads to global warming, which in turns leads to severe weather conditions, which in turn leads to catastrophes aren't we part of the process?  It doesn't matter what happened millions of years ago.  We are suffering the effects of it now.  How about we quit using fossil fuel because renewable energy is more efficient than fossil fuel?

                  1. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, you question is valid only if you believe we are causing the global warming...by using fossil fuel...
                    What if the earth is going through a natural warming cycle?
                    So far, we don’t have a viable alternative to fossil fuel.
                    Yes, solar and wind accounts for only 5% of our energy use.
                    What should we do in the meantime?

                    I was in China a few years ago, in the northern part. These people rely on coal which is cheap and abundant. If you stop them from using coal, what do you wnat them to do? Just die?
                    That is the problem with the Green New deal...
                    It is not realistic in 2019.
                    We have not found a viable alternative as yet. When that day comes, I will be on board.

        2. profile image76
          Hxprofposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Jack, I seriously doubt that the manmade global climate change folks will ever get the upper hand to the extent they need to impose their agenda.  Too many people, not just in the States, won't buy into the "solutions" proposed by them.

    3. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      "The latest green new deal is one example of common sense going out the window"

      It would help if you listed which specific proposal(s) within it you are objecting to.

      1. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        All of them...getting rid of airplanes, refurbish all homes for energy efficiency, getting rid of fossil fuel in 10 years, high speed trains...
        Solar and wind power...they don’t work and rhey are not for mission critical needs...

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          ". . . getting rid of airplanes . . ."

          I missed that part. I saw the part that mentioned:

          "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible . . ."(1)

          Can you tell me which part mentions "getting rid of airplanes"?

          As for the rest, you object to all of it? So you object to the proposal to:

          ". . .create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;"

          ". . . invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;"

          ". . . secure for all people of the United States for generations to come:

          (i) clean air and water;
          (ii) climate and community resiliency;
          (iii) healthy food;
          (iv) access to nature; and
          (v) a sustainable environment; . . ."(2)

          You object to every single one of those things?

          Do you not like jobs, investment in infrastructure, clean air and water etc? Do you consider those things bad?

          (1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … n/109/text
          (2) ibid

          1. jackclee lm profile image80
            jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            There are few green jobs...look what happened during the obama admin. He loaned Solyndra 500 million and they went bust...

            The government has no business picking winners and losers. Let the private sector develop the technology that will replace fossil fuel.
            Once it is viable, the market will take care of it. I am a skeptic when it comes to climate change. There are cheaper and better ways to mitigate climate change.

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              I don't think 2 million green jobs is a small number.

              https://www.bls.gov/green/

              1. jackclee lm profile image80
                jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Where are they?
                Look to Australia and Germany...where they have made great investment into renewable energy.
                Guess what, they had to deal with brownouts...
                Currently, wind and solar are just not reliable.
                There is no good, reliable, cheap alternatives to fossil fuel. Even nuclear power has its limitations.

            2. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Hold on there Jack. Can we acknowledge that the section you interpreted as "getting rid of airplanes" in fact described "[removing] pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible" (my emphasis). So unless there is another section I missed, your reaction was based on misinterpretation.

              That raises the question, how much more of your reaction is based on misinterpretation rather than what the resolution actually says?

              "There are few green jobs..."

              The resolution doesn't say otherwise. It expresses the desire to create them. That's pretty much the point. You may think it's not possible, but do you really object to wanting to create millions of jobs?

              Also, government intervention in industry for the public good is a legitimate function of government. In fact it's a necessary function of government with an economic system that inherently favors maximum profit over wellbeing, even in situations where those two outcomes conflict.

              "I am a skeptic when it comes to climate change."

              Well no one's perfect, but why does that cause you to object to a measure calling on government to ". . . invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century". Surely you don't have to accept climate change to be in favor of investing in infrastructure and industry, do you?

              1. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                From the Green New Deal

                “Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary,"

                How can air travel stop being necessary?  Read this again, this is on the Senate version Mitch McConnell wants to bring up for a vote. 

                Sorry, to think that high-speed rail can do away with air travel is idiotic.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Not sure I want to pay for, or ride on, a train to Hawaii.  Or even between Oahu and the big island.

                  I also have to wonder how freight trains will be powered.  That's a LOT of electricity going down those rails!

                2. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  "Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary"

                  "Read this again, this is on the Senate version Mitch McConnell wants to bring up for a vote."

                  Neither the House, nor the Senate resolutions contain those words(1)(2).

                  Facts are important.

                  (1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … n/109/text
                  (2) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … on/59/text

    4. profile image76
      Hxprofposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Jack, this video is a serious evaluation of the Green New Deal.  Relax and enjoy.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74f7BSUhulk

  2. gmwilliams profile image83
    gmwilliamsposted 5 months ago

    Jack, I hope you don't mind.  I am going to add a fitting video to this discusson: Here it is-
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9poCAuYT-s

    The current sociopolitical climate brings this song to mind.  This song is more relevant today than ever!

    1. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Sure, go ahead...love to see it.

      1. gmwilliams profile image83
        gmwilliamsposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Thank you, Jack.   It isn't a video but a 1970s song describing the conditions of the world, especially the United States.

  3. gmwilliams profile image83
    gmwilliamsposted 5 months ago

    Jack, we have indeed entered the twilight zone of politics besides the climate change paradigm.  Both parties have become...……….MORE EXTREME.  There are conservatives who have become reactionary, even retrogressive in their stance as there are liberals who veered into the left, becoming even revolutionary.  The American political world has gone......INSANE.
    https://hubstatic.com/13915089.jpg

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)