Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:15 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Fundamental Differences In Conservative And Liberal Views Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 12:24:31 PM

It may be helpful to recognize the fundamental differences in conservative and liberal views.

We seem to be repeatedly revisiting some of the same basic concepts and spending enormous efforts trying to convince the other side why our view makes more sense.

One of them I have noticed is the treatment of the poor.

Conservatives seem to feel that the poor are poor simply because they are lazy. That if they just got determined enough and worked hard enough in the right way that they could climb out of the poverty cycle.

Liberals seem to hold that they are poor because opportunities available to others are not available to them. And they blame the rich policy-makers for systematically doing things that limit these opportunities.

Do you concur?

If so, why do we need to re-argue what has already been covered? This forum is great for learning what makes the 'other side' tick; but would be better if we could move on from the same-old same-old and try to arrive at some solutions or equitable compromise suggestions to send off to our representatives.

What other subjects can you identify the views of both sides on?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 11:41:57 AM

PopcornPirate: "The banks ... got greedy."

Sometimes a few words say a lot.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,312
Points:1,461,605
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 9:31:38 AM

The banks got caught in their own bubble. They seen other banks making these loans & no one thought the Bull housing market would go to Bear.
They got greedy.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 3:14:31 PM

PopcornPirate - "The Government encouraged the banks to hand out these sub-prime mortgages. They in turn encouraged other banks & lending institutions to follow suit. The government caused the bubble. It burst because it was not sustainable"

When did the government encourage banks to make loans for $500,000 houses with only 5% to 10% down?

The government was encouraging loans to people who were far below those levels. It was the lenders that thought they saw huge profit potential in doing the same thing for much more expensive houses.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,312
Points:1,461,605
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 9:58:36 AM

""The real problem wasn't the sub-prime mortgages being pushed by the government for lower-class homeowners, but the sub-prime mortgages everyone else started pushing, for people to buy overvalued real estate with the expectation that the prices would keep rising forever.""

The Housing Bubble.
House prices were rising faster then you could count. My 1st (SMALL) house tripled in the 7 years I was there. Sold it & bought another house a few months before the Housing bubble burst....But I still had a job that paid well.
Problem was that the houses that were sold here in NJ for $400,000 or $500,000 range are still after 5 years now worth only in the $320,000 to $370,000 range.
Most people at the time the bubble was being inflated were only putting maybe 5% to 10% down on these $500,000 houses. Still owing $475,000 to $450,000 on the mortgage of a house that now is only worth $350,000.

The Government encouraged the banks to hand out these sub-prime mortgages. They in turn encouraged other banks & lending institutions to follow suit. The government caused the bubble. It burst because it was not sustainable

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2014 1:59:01 PM

Troller_Diesel - "Thanks for making my point.

Even though you have no clue how you did it!"

It appears that you're making my point.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2014 9:30:50 AM

Thanks for making my point.

Even though you have no clue how you did it!
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2014 7:49:41 PM

Troller_Diesel - "OK. Stupid question and a straw man."

You mean a question that exposes your strawman?

"Typical liberal response..."

Typical for you to ignore your error and try to divert blame.

And it's doubtful that you understand what Marxism is, since you seem to use that strictly as a derogatory synonym for "socialism".

Which you also don't seem to understand.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 8/24/2014 7:51:23 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2014 7:43:37 PM

Difference between Conservative and Liberal Views?

Liberals desire Marxism.

Conservatives understand Marxism.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2014 7:41:52 PM

OK. Stupid question and a straw man.

Typical liberal response...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2014 7:21:31 PM

Troller_Diesel - "Senate Democrats Block Bill To Audit the Federal Reserve"

Sorry, but what does that have to do with the recession?

And that was a bill introduced by, according to your link, Bernie Sanders, who the right likes to blame for the recession.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2014 4:19:29 PM

Might want to take off the liberal-coloured blinders. Republicans DID try to change the system, and were continually blocked by Democrats.

Mostly because the answer would have brought down the house of cards that the Democrats have built...

Senate Democrats Block Bill To Audit the Federal Reserve

Prior to this, President George W. Bush attempted to pass legislation to audit the Fed, which was also defeated by Democrats.

But you won't ever see Democrats taking responsibility. They always point fingers at Republicans and try to shift the blame.


[Edited by: Troller_Diesel at 8/24/2014 4:20:16 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,433
Points:1,822,180
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2014 12:06:45 PM

>>But you won't ever see Republicans taking responsibility. They always point fingers at Democrats and try to shift the blame.<<
~
The TEA Party (mostly made up of responsible Republicans) addressed this issue. While it is true, the RINO's who were in power during the late 1990's through 2006, try to blame Democrats for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco. They forget the legislation that prompted the repeal of the Glass Steagel Act was sponsored Sen Phil Graham, a Republican.

The problem goes far beyond just greed. It is political corruption. The primary beneficiaries of all the bailouts were the Officers of a couple of major bank, Investment Banks and at least one major Industrial corporation. All of which were indeed major contributors to the Democrat cause. This could have been because the Republicans were thrown out of office in 2006 and the corporate leadership wanted to have continued access to the then changing political power.
~
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,689
Points:650,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2014 9:34:00 AM

"So it was greed, not government, that caused the problem."

Even if conservatives could make the case that it was government instead of greed then they'd have to accept that the Republicans were just as much if not more at fault than the Democrats since during their eight years in power they did nothing to change the system. If they were as smart as they think they are they would have foreseen the problem coming and acted accordingly.

But you won't ever see Republicans taking responsibility. They always point fingers at Democrats and try to shift the blame.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2014 3:46:21 AM

Cirdan - "Ah, the greatest LIE of the last decade. The "leveraging up" was the direct result of US Government policy, pushed by Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Maxine Waters. They wanted everyone to own a house and pushed the sub-prime mortgage market up, and up, and up. When the banks wouldn't loan to such bad risks, they let them off the hook by pushing Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to buy, without question, all of the high-risk mortgages. This, then, created a massive housing bubble that would, inevitably pop. When it popped (ALL bubbles pop), it crashed the sub-prime mortgage market with it.

Sorry, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the triggers, not the bubble itself.

"This is NOT the result of capitalism. It's the result of political interference with efficient markets by forcing non-market outcomes. Without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying all the sub-prime mortgages, the banks never would have lent the money. This is all due to the fools on the hill - mostly Liberal Democrats."

Except that the great mass of those sub-prime mortgages were not bought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The rest of the industry looked at the profits being made by Fannie and Freddie in that market and jumped in feet first, without really considering the risks, with their own products.

The real problem wasn't the sub-prime mortgages being pushed by the government for lower-class homeowners, but the sub-prime mortgages everyone else started pushing, for people to buy overvalued real estate with the expectation that the prices would keep rising forever.

So it was greed, not government, that caused the problem.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,497
Points:136,545
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2014 12:42:30 AM

"An improperly regulated banking sector leveraged up irresponsibly. . ."

Ah, the greatest LIE of the last decade. The "leveraging up" was the direct result of US Government policy, pushed by Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Maxine Waters. They wanted everyone to own a house and pushed the sub-prime mortgage market up, and up, and up. When the banks wouldn't loan to such bad risks, they let them off the hook by pushing Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to buy, without question, all of the high-risk mortgages. This, then, created a massive housing bubble that would, inevitably pop. When it popped (ALL bubbles pop), it crashed the sub-prime mortgage market with it.

This created two devestating outcomes:
1) A financial crisis from billions in bad debts
2) The utter destruction of home values, where the bulk of the middle class "stores" the wealth they accumulate

The outcome - total financial devastation to the middle class.

Cause - STUPID government policies pushed by DEMOCRATS (mostly, some Republicans played the game).

Of course no liberal would ever accept responsibility for STUPID economic policies, so they blame the bankers - for doing EXACTLY what they wanted, and incentivised them to do.

This is NOT the result of capitalism. It's the result of political interference with efficient markets by forcing non-market outcomes. Without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying all the sub-prime mortgages, the banks never would have lent the money. This is all due to the fools on the hill - mostly Liberal Democrats.

[Edited by: Cirdan at 8/23/2014 12:43:42 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2014 11:59:22 AM

"Republicans ought to change their policy prescriptions if they turn out to be false. And my finding is that they have. The economic shock of the last five years showed several ways in which conservative economic policies fail to uplift the middle class. An improperly regulated banking sector leveraged up irresponsibly and then crashed, causing a mini-depression. People can't find jobs. Their wages are not rising robustly."

"Conservatives have two options here. One is that they can admit that they don't care about uplifting the middle class; that their first principles are not utilitarian and not aimed at benefitting the broad public. That would be principled, but I don't think it would be good, and most voters would agree with me.

The other is that they can come up with a new agenda that aims at today's middle class economic concerns. This agenda would have to accept greater fiscal progressivity in response to economic changes that have raised pre-tax income inequality. It would have to accept that we have not defeated the business cycle, and deep recessions like the one in 2009 make a stronger safety net morally necessary. It would have to address the question of how the government should best interfere in markets like health care and banking, rather than repeating mindlessly that it must get out of the way.

Conservatives will protest that this would make Republicans a lot more like Democrats. That's true. In most advanced countries, right- and left-of-center political parties accept the basic shape of the tax system, the safety net, and the role of government, and they fight over design matters at the margin. Despite the conservative tendency to talk about other advanced countries like they are some sort of hellscape, this system works well and we would do well to emulate it.

The role of Republicans in this system would be to provide a healthy, needed skepticism about the role and capabilities of government. But the key there, as I discussed yesterday, is "healthy." Conservatism has committed them to an unhealthy level of objection to the government, forcing them to push policies that harm the public and costing them credibility in the cases when their cautions are actually correct."

Business Insider
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,497
Points:136,545
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2014 12:14:55 AM

sorry, bad link

[Edited by: Cirdan at 8/22/2014 12:15:35 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2014 12:29:00 AM

Troller_Diesel - "There you go! I fixed it for you!"

Apparently you missed: "The same is true of what I see many liberals post."

Maybe you should read the whole thing before leaping to conclusions.

"You have a point on extremism, though. The problem is that most people don't recognize their own extremism..."

Yes, apparently you don't. 7;-]
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 9:47:06 PM

rjhenn: "Much of what I see so-called conservatives post is hearsay, fantasy and opinion, not facts or evidence. Of course, they think it's evidence, because it supports what they want to believe."

Much of what I see so-called liberals/progressives/socialists post is hearsay, fantasy and opinion, not facts or evidence. Of course, they think it's evidence, because it supports what they want to believe.

There you go! I fixed it for you!

You have a point on extremism, though. The problem is that most people don't recognize their own extremism...

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 12:14:56 PM

Troller_Diesel - "Since truth is usually the first casualty of leftism..."

Actually, truth is usually the first casualty of extremism. And American politics is degenerating into more partisanship and extremism.

"Conservatives spend a lot of time posting links, facts, evidence, and discuss topic and try to explain the truth to liberals - like SemiSteve."

Much of what I see so-called conservatives post is hearsay, fantasy and opinion, not facts or evidence. Of course, they think it's evidence, because it supports what they want to believe.

And what they're explaining often is "the truth" only because that's what they want to believe.

The same is true of what I see many liberals post.

"Instead, liberals are busy whining and complaining about the people who DO create new technologies, and trying to tax them out of business or drive them out of business."

Like that nonsense.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 10:10:20 AM

The problem is, those "renewable" resources don't exist, aren't practical, nor cost effective.

And, we can be sure that it won't be liberals developing any of those new emerging technologies.

Instead, liberals are busy whining and complaining about the people who DO create new technologies, and trying to tax them out of business or drive them out of business.

For example, electric cars. Ford decided they were impractical in 1899.

And, they aren't practical now.

Regardless of the fevered imaginations of libs who think electricity comes from a pair of small round holes with slots in the wall...

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 9:58:57 AM

rjhenn: "The wheels/motors exist. The problem is finding someone who wants to use them. As I said, I think they're starting at the wrong end of the vehicle spectrum, probably because cars are sexier than semi tractors."

Excellent observation.

BabeTruth: "Whatever your reasons to switching to renewable resources, it’s also obvious that the switch will eventually have to be made. It’s more economical to develop it sooner rather than later instead of a crash development under stress."

Totally agree.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 7:37:00 PM

So, let's actually expose the difference, shall we?

Conservatives spend a lot of time posting links, facts, evidence, and discuss topic and try to explain the truth to liberals - like SemiSteve.

And then liberals - like SemiSteve - simply dismiss those comments with a wave of his hand, slaughter straw men, and then tell conservatives "what conservatives believe" after completely ignoring everything they actually said.

And then SemiSteve claims he bases his opinions on "logic" and "facts."

Does that about cover it?

Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 7:26:13 PM

BabyTooth: "Yes, it does, at least if the conservative is you. Do you ever add anything constructive to any threads you post in or are they all ad hominems, appeals to ridicule and name-calling?"

Did you write the post that I replied to? Just curious, since it seems you didn't read it.

Duh.

BabyTooth: "Sorry TD. I didn't realize you were on this thread still or I would have dumbed it down to make it easier for you to follow. You know if you got some Ritalin from some of your little friends it might make it easier for you to focus. If not then perhaps you should just stay out in the schoolyard where you can make up imaginary things to insult liberals about as per your usual."

Like I've always said, don't start none, won't be none.

Don't come back with a reply like that and then castigate me for "more of the same."

Between you and SemiSteve, it would be a full time job pointing out the incredible number of fallacies the two of you use in any "discussion" in any thread.

But, liberals, go ahead and discuss what conservative views are amongst yourselves....

Since truth is usually the first casualty of leftism...

Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 7:21:56 PM

SemiSteve: "I think the problem with climate change is that conservatives see it as something they can survive if it is real; and something costly if measures are taken to stop the process. There is another entire concern that is overlooked."

Again, an example of where you're not listening to what people say, but believing what you think they said.

The problem with climate change is simply what you said: "IF it is real."

Secondly, is it anthropomorphic, and third, is there really anything that can actually be done about it?

Those three questions need to be answered before the global economy is asked to sacrifice a huge amount of wealth for what may simply be a fantasy.

Exhibit A: DDT.
Exhibit B: Ozone layer.

Both of which were wrong. And both cost billion$ and in the case of DDT, millions of lives.

In other words, conservatives are skeptical, and want solid proof.

Liberals have never met a problem that their "gotta-do-something-itis" doesn't cause them to want to "solve".

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 7:07:26 PM

BabeTruth - "It’s a bit different wiping out a nation of a few hundred thousand people with spears and arrows and wiping out tens of millions with nuclear weapons."

Mostly because there are a lot more people around today, and in much higher densities.

"The main reasons for war seem to be religion and land/economy. True, you probably won’t change human nature in the foreseeable future, but why not try to reduce the causes?"

The main reasons appear to be ideology (not just religion), land/economy and lust for power. Which is primary varies with the times. And reducing one cause just brings the others to the fore.

"What’s the threshold below which it’s not worth bothering about?"

Not the point, which is that we spend more time and effort arguing over climate change than we do doing things that we probably need to do whether or not man-made climate change is as bad as some think it is.

“Whatever your reasons to switching to renewable resources, it’s also obvious that the switch will eventually have to be made. It’s more economical to develop it sooner rather than later instead of a crash development under stress."

Agreed. Which is why we need to stop fighting over whose justification is better than the other and just use the one(s) we can get most people to agree on.

“Actually, development on that started about 70 years ago. That’s basically how a diesel locomotive works. What you’re talking about is just scaling it down to the size of a passenger car."

The wheels/motors exist. The problem is finding someone who wants to use them. As I said, I think they're starting at the wrong end of the vehicle spectrum, probably because cars are sexier than semi tractors.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,689
Points:650,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 4:39:59 PM

BabeTruth - "It's a bit different when the two warring nations only had spears and arrows than when they both have nuclear weapons."

rjhenn “A bit. But entire nations have been wiped out, and their lands laid waste for generations, by armies armed with spears and arrows.”

It’s a bit different wiping out a nation of a few hundred thousand people with spears and arrows and wiping out tens of millions with nuclear weapons.

"And in any case, do you think war is good?"

“No, but I think that it will take a major, and unlikely, change in human nature to get rid of it.”

The main reasons for war seem to be religion and land/economy. True, you probably won’t change human nature in the foreseeable future, but why not try to reduce the causes?

"Until recently all climate change was natural. But just like the ecosystems and environment, humans are now to the point of being able to influence some climate change."

“Some. The question is, how much?”

What’s the threshold below which it’s not worth bothering about?

“Personally, I think we should be making many of these decisions based on known health effects of pollution and the economic benefits of renewable energy sources, instead of arguing about climate change.”

People were advocating reducing smoking before all the health effects were known. It’s known that pollution is bad even if the effects of it aren’t 100% quantifiable.

Whatever your reasons to switching to renewable resources, it’s also obvious that the switch will eventually have to be made. It’s more economical to develop it sooner rather than later instead of a crash development under stress.

“Which, in general, would mean shifting from the traditional idea of large centralized energy production to more distributed energy production. Put solar cells and small wind generators on every available roof, rather than setting up huge installations at remote sites.”

I agree with you all the way there.

“Get away from traditional auto design also. Put electric motors in each wheel, eliminating most of the drive train, with some batteries, but primarily a small engine (multi-fuel) matched to a generator sized to provide enough juice to keep the loaded vehicle moving at highway speeds, plus a bit. The engine could be simplified, since it would operate at constant load and speed. If there are initial concerns about unsprung weight, start by building semi-tractors that way, then work your way down.”

Good ideas again.

Actually, development on that started about 70 years ago. That’s basically how a diesel locomotive works. What you’re talking about is just scaling it down to the size of a passenger car.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 3:50:39 PM

BabeTruth - "It's a bit different when the two warring nations only had spears and arrows than when they both have nuclear weapons."

A bit. But entire nations have been wiped out, and their lands laid waste for generations, by armies armed with spears and arrows.

"And in any case, do you think war is good?"

No, but I think that it will take a major, and unlikely, change in human nature to get rid of it.

"Until recently all climate change was natural. But just like the ecosystems and environment, humans are now to the point of being able to influence some climate change."

Some. The question is, how much?

Personally, I think we should be making many of these decisions based on known health effects of pollution and the economic benefits of renewable energy sources, instead of arguing about climate change.

Which, in general, would mean shifting from the traditional idea of large centralized energy production to more distributed energy production. Put solar cells and small wind generators on every available roof, rather than setting up huge installations at remote sites.

Get away from traditional auto design also. Put electric motors in each wheel, eliminating most of the drive train, with some batteries, but primarily a small engine (multi-fuel) matched to a generator sized to provide enough juice to keep the loaded vehicle moving at highway speeds, plus a bit. The engine could be simplified, since it would operate at constant load and speed. If there are initial concerns about unsprung weight, start by building semi-tractors that way, then work your way down.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 8/19/2014 3:51:47 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 2:49:19 PM

Just look at ocean acidification.

'Oh, but humans had nothing to do with that,' is what stubborn conservatives would say.

Problem is that the sea is absorbing tons of excess CO2. This is causing an increase in carbonic acid. This affects the food chain down to its very core.

Tiny sea creatures form the basis of the food chain. They also have calcium based shells. Too much carbonic acid in the sea wipes them out and that takes to food source for millions of other animals.

Including humans.

Oops.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,689
Points:650,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 1:47:42 PM

SemiSteve - "What is not considered is that when multiple entire valleys are dependent upon glacier melt run-off for water and that goes away, there will be mass migrations of people looking for new places to settle. But those new places are already inhabited. Conflicts are bound to erupt."

rjhenn "Which has been happening for thousands of years."

It's a bit different when the two warring nations only had spears and arrows than when they both have nuclear weapons.

And in any case, do you think war is good?

"Many don't realize that ignoring climate change could be more costly than taking measures to stop it."

"Which seems to be based on the idea that all climate change is manmade."

Until recently all climate change was natural. But just like the ecosystems and environment, humans are now to the point of being able to influence some climate change.

A couple of hundred years ago people thought humans could never pollute enough to influence the environment. We now know that was wrong.

A couple of hundred years ago people thought humans could never hunt enough to influence the ecosystem. We now know that was wrong too.

Today some people think we could never do anything to influence the climate. But already big cities have their own micro-climate separate and different from the surrounding territory.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,689
Points:650,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 1:26:17 PM

Steve, that's very true.

Best example is the Indus River. It's fed by glaciers in the Himalayas and is fairly seasonal in flow rates.

The Indus runs between Pakistan and India and is claimed to be essential by both countries. Both of them use it for drinking water and irrigation and if the amount of water was severely reduced it could be devastating to both agriculture and habitation.

The river flows first through India and then later on through Pakistan. India has said that it will take as much water as it needs from the headwaters in order to maintain the population. Pakistan has threatened that if India takes so much water that it affects Pakistan that it would be considered an act of war.

Both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and both countries dislike each other intensely.

So could reduced snow/meltwater in the Himalayas because of warming have any affect on global peace?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 1:11:26 PM

SemiSteve - "What is not considered is that when multiple entire valleys are dependent upon glacier melt run-off for water and that goes away, there will be mass migrations of people looking for new places to settle. But those new places are already inhabited. Conflicts are bound to erupt."

Which has been happening for thousands of years.

"Many don't realize that ignoring climate change could be more costly than taking measures to stop it."

Which seems to be based on the idea that all climate change is manmade.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 12:57:31 PM

I think the problem with climate change is that conservatives see it as something they can survive if it is real; and something costly if measures are taken to stop the process. There is another entire concern that is overlooked.

What is not considered is that when multiple entire valleys are dependent upon glacier melt run-off for water and that goes away, there will be mass migrations of people looking for new places to settle. But those new places are already inhabited. Conflicts are bound to erupt.

The problem is that when conflicts erupt, markets are affected. This could hit people in the pocketbook.

Many don't realize that ignoring climate change could be more costly than taking measures to stop it.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 8/19/2014 12:57:55 PM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,054
Points:2,940,770
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 12:53:47 PM

Indeed, BabeTruth, agreement is good.
You might want to check out a thread I started four years ago, Travelling Wave Reactors (Bill Gates project) that uses depleted uranium with no need for reprocessing. In that thread I posted about Thorium Reactors. Both of these types need to be developed if feasible. Small-scale power plants would be great, be less intrusive o the landscape, offer more energy security, and be a boon to construction and electrical industries.

About your last post, regarding my last post:
I agree that fossil fuels are finite, that the raw materials have other values and uses, that extraction is a dirty business. I disagree that burning them (cleanly and responsibly) is harming the atmosphere.
As for scarred landscapes, as ugly as those are, the damage is temporary. Not in your and your children's lifetimes, but land eventually heals. Consider land that has been buried by volcanic debris, or land that has been uncovered after glaciation (my home town included in that). For adjoining property owners, the far future is of no comfort for current damage.

About permafrost, in some areas in Alaska, the immediate problem is buildings sinking down. The inhabitants of those buildings probably don't have a plan for agriculture, but they need to live up there as they pursue what they currently do for a living - fish, drill for oil, run boats and planes. I was in Alaska in 1976 and even then they had refrigeration units and separators on posts that insulated buildings from the soil to help keep the permafrost from melting. Obviously this requires lots of electricity and is intrusive.

The long term problem with shifting climatic zones (and I don't see this happening now or soon) is that people who own land would have to shift what they do with their land. Change crops. Shifts might be very slow and long-term, but the disruption of changing local economics is immediate. That's where money might need to be spent to help transition into suitable future purposes.

I see market-based investment providing the push to the future, much more than government spending. That's a good thing, let private money take the risk. It something works well, somebody gets rich. If an idea doesn't work, somebody loses money, but at least not the taxpayers.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,689
Points:650,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 12:09:19 PM

I75a7AM “As far as ruining the economy is concerned, and saving the environment, we can deal with both issues at the same time.”

You’re right, we can and should deal with both issues at the same time.

But will it really ruining the economy? Fossil fuels will eventually run out no matter what we do. Sure we can increase the efficiency of extraction of coal, oil and gas but they’re finite resources, and the more we can extract the more expensive they get.

So no matter what we do we’ll eventually need to have alternate sources of energy.

At the moment there’s no question that renewable energy can’t provide anywhere near the power that fossil fuels can. But developing them to the point where they can replace fossil fuels will take decades if not generations.

Shouldn’t we be working on them now so that when the time comes that we have no choice that they’re ready to take over the load?

As far as saving the environment, whether or not you think CO2 presents a danger there’s no question that fossil fuels present other environmental dangers. There are large stretches of land that are uninhabitable because of the extraction of gas, oil and coal and many diseases have been linked to their combustion.

Also, burning fossil fuels for energy is extremely wasteful because they provide thousands of different compounds used for raw materials in many products, including medicines. If they’re burned, those compounds are lost to us forever.

“Instead of spending many billions, literally trillions worldwide, trying to greatly reduce the use of carbon-based fuels, we could spend some money on finding new ways to live in places where the environment has changed.”

Isn’t that part of doing both things at the same time?

“Whether that means learning how to live on squishy soil that used to be permafrost..”

Not sure if you’ve ever been up there but that soil is very poor in nutrients and difficult to work with. It would probably take generations to make it arable.

“.. to irrigating land for agriculture that is too arid (we already do this)..”

Yes, but irrigation can become very expensive too, especially if rain patterns change and there’s no nearby source of water. Also, there has been more than one ancient civilization that collapsed because over time irrigation leached out the nutrients and killed the land with salts. Purifying water for irrigation is very expensive.

“.. to building along sea coasts in a wise manner to reduce hurricane damage (as sea level slowly rises, the extreme events will produce damage before a general rise floods anything)..”

Yes, for sure that will have to be done. In fact it’s already being done in some parts of New York, particularly the tip of Manhattan. The Dutch are another good example.

“.. we can do smart things with money and live with the world as it is and as it becomes.”

I agree. But isn’t mitigating the damage we do a part of that? It might be cheaper in the long run to stop doing things that destroy the environment than trying to keep playing catch-up with the damage, especially since we don’t know the consequences of much of the harm we do.

Your argument about the modelling works here too. We can’t model/predict what exact effect we’re going to have on the ecosystem yet there’s no question about the theory that we’re going to harm it.

“Moving away from fossil fuels is a great goal, one that as an older person I would have thought would have happened in my lifetime but hasn't. The reason for moving away from carbon-based fuel is not to avoid CO² emissions (as CO² has little effect) but because extracting fossil fuels is hugely expensive.”

Looks like we’re pretty much in agreement on that.

“The money we would save by not chasing invisible non-existent demons could be well-invested in new technologies and methods of living more in harmony with our environment.”

Unless you think cold fusion is going to be available some time soon, that means renewable energy sources. Does it really matter whether those sources are being developed for “non-existent demons” or some other reason?

PS I75at7AM, it’s nice that you and I can at least discuss this like adults instead of what passes for posts from the king of ad hominem and ridicule.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 12:08:57 PM

So true, RAB.

Insults, too.

Some just come here to unload their grief upon others whom they see as causing whatever problem they are hacked off about. This attitude does not seek conversation with those they disagree with, only to lay blame.

When understanding is not sought, solutions can not be derived.

Most tough problems are complex. Shallow assessments are tempting, but rarely accurate. It is a vast nation and world, issues are almost all interconnected. Making changes is compounded by a difficulty to control outcome. Many simply fear change of any sort and often lash out at those who suggest change.

Understanding goes a long way.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:636
Points:74,970
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 11:13:14 AM

It does not look like either point of view is correct. Maybe that is part of the problem; people do not listen, so they do not know what somebody else believes. Maybe the problem is that we have given up listening because Americans are so poorly educated that most are not capable of rational thought any longer, so there is no point in talking? That would explain why, instead of talking, people use fists, rocks, clubs, knives, guns, and whatever else to communicate with.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,689
Points:650,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 10:53:08 AM

TD “Pretty much everything I've read that you've posted has been pretty dumb.”

Yes, when it’s way above your head it is hard for you to make sense of it.TD “So, ad hominems, appeals to ridicule...”

True, you do a lot of that.

Don’t forget to add the childish name-calling that you’re prone to as well. Such as in your last sentence.

“I guess that shows the difference between conservative and liberal views alright.”

Yes, it does, at least if the conservative is you. Do you ever add anything constructive to any threads you post in or are they all ad hominems, appeals to ridicule and name-calling?

“Simply put: A conservative decides to be a vegetarian, he simply doesn't consume meat. A liberal decides to be a vegetarian, he absolutely DEMANDS that ALL meat be banned for EVERYBODY!”

Stereotyping based on generalizations are always incorrect. Why do you keep posting such nonsense?“Conservatives believe in individual rights, liberals believe in human rights.”

Without human rights individual rights just devolve into feudalism.“Although, BabyTooth, I highly doubt you know or could understand the difference between the two...”
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 10:26:30 AM

BabyTooth: "Sorry TD. I didn't realize you were on this thread still or I would have dumbed it down to make it easier for you to follow."

Pretty much everything I've read that you've posted has been pretty dumb.

So, ad hominems, appeals to ridicule...

I guess that shows the difference between conservative and liberal views alright.

Simply put: A conservative decides to be a vegetarian, he simply doesn't consume meat. A liberal decides to be a vegetarian, he absolutely DEMANDS that ALL meat be banned for EVERYBODY!

Conservatives believe in individual rights, liberals believe in human rights.

Although, BabyTooth, I highly doubt you know or could understand the difference between the two...

Profile Pic
samk2012
Veteran Author Michigan

Posts:459
Points:183,530
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 9:34:18 AM

A google search you will find some interesting facts?

Why they don't change the law loopholes if billions of tax dollars are going out of the country ? Who is to blame here National parties, Law makers, Undisclosed funding, Company Share Holders stock options, Undisclosed Heavy lobbying with senators or congressmen or private wealth?

Your local economy is good for you and your country ? Your local economies tank your house value decreases to almost null, No Jobs,No city expenditure and no Clean drinking water and more many which can't be explained. Don't save pennies and leave the Big Foot elephant to take a ride to China, Netherlands and other country economies.See that the local economies are giving away marijuana licenses for state income ,what next public stripping,sex licenses
or what disturbing licenses you cannot think of?

Did you ever tweet or reach your congressmen about the potential facts the local economies are facing ? Do you ever tell your congressmen about more transparent government is needed?

I read from internet , you do the same and help yourself , tweet the law makers.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,054
Points:2,940,770
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 8:20:50 AM

As far as ruining the economy is concerned, and saving the environment, we can deal with both issues at the same time. Instead of spending many billions, literally trillions worldwide, trying to greatly reduce the use of carbon-based fuels, we could spend some money on finding new ways to live in places where the environment has changed. Whether that means learning how to live on squishy soil that used to be permafrost to irrigating land for agriculture that is too arid (we already do this) to building along sea coasts in a wise manner to reduce hurricane damage (as sea level slowly rises, the extreme events will produce damage before a general rise floods anything), we can do smart things with money and live with the world as it is and as it becomes. Moving away from fossil fuels is a great goal, one that as an older person I would have thought would have happened in my lifetime but hasn't. The reason for moving away from carbon-based fuel is not to avoid CO² emissions (as CO² has little effect) but because extracting fossil fuels is hugely expensive. The money we would save by not chasing invisible non-existent demons could be well-invested in new technologies and methods of living more in harmony with our environment.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,689
Points:650,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 8:02:48 AM

Sorry TD. I didn't realize you were on this thread still or I would have dumbed it down to make it easier for you to follow. You know if you got some Ritalin from some of your little friends it might make it easier for you to focus. If not then perhaps you should just stay out in the schoolyard where you can make up imaginary things to insult liberals about as per your usual.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 7:51:52 AM

Most people prioritize life above money. There was a time when this would be the conservative view.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 8/19/2014 7:53:14 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 6:38:20 PM

OTOH, if we take those measures, we may just ruin our economy for nothing.

Of course, if it turns out that we didn't need to take those measures, we'll just hear the claim that the measures were successful.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 6:10:45 PM

Well, if we wait for proof that measures are necessary the measures will not work. That much we know.

It's not like you can reduce consumption enough to the effects of previous consumption.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 5:07:21 PM

SemiSteve - "We should take the measures no matter the cost because we don't have a spare environment."

Even when there's little or no evidence that the measures are either necessary or will accomplish what they're intended to accomplish?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 4:23:01 PM

Sure getting a lot of mileage out of 6 parking spaces.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,705,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 3:56:13 PM

I75at7AM - ""Absolutism" as you call it is absolutely necessary to find real truth in many fields."

No, realism is. Absolutism is just as delusional as what you call "relativism".

"It sure does if you follow the AGW argument. REAL climate science searches for the truth, and those truths must be absolute."

But absolutism starts with "the truth" and tries to make everything else fit.

"The AGW people are eager to jump onto any variance in weather and attribute it to AGW and they have no qualms about shifting their theory to fit their new-found data."

Depending on what you mean by "shifting their theory", that could mean they are absolutists, trying to get the data to support their preconceived conclusion, or it could mean they're simply scientists, trying to get their theory to fit the facts. In any event, they're not your "relativists".

"And those of us to reject the weak, non-scientific AGW garbage are not desperate at all, we are just realists."

Most of those who promote absolute beliefs believe that they are just realists. After all, reality has to conform to their beliefs, not the other way around.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,352
Points:12,205
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 3:37:05 PM

BabeTruth: " I’ve seen more rain in the last 5 years than I have for the entire rest of my life."

I think you're confusing weather with climate change...

At any rate, your statement is simply an anecdotal fallacy.

I got tired of reading at that point, so I'll just brand the rest of your post as an Argumentem ad verbosity...

[Edited by: Troller_Diesel at 8/18/2014 3:38:19 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,689
Points:650,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 3:31:41 PM

I75at7AM “BabeTruth, you are the one who used the term "rapid" so you define it.
I don't see it happening.”

Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean that it’s not happening. Either you’re thinking weather instead of climate, you’re in an area where the changes aren’t yet evident, or you haven’t lived long enough. I’ve seen more rain in the last 5 years than I have for the entire rest of my life. I haven’t had to water the lawns or gardens for two years now. Yet for every year before watering was necessary and water restrictions were common in the summer.“A temperature rise of 1°C over a Century is "rapid"? Not in my book. The daily temperature goes up by about 20°F every day. Yesterday we got a 30 degree rise. All perfectly normal. One degree a Century is barely measurable. Seriously.”

That’s because you’re looking at weather, not climate.

Weather is what’s happening on a daily basis. If the temperature goes up 20°F between midnight and noon, that’s weather. It’s not climate.

Climate is what’s happening over a long period of time. It’s measured in decades if not centuries. An increase of 1°C (approx. 2°F) IS a rapid change. To get such an increase in average temperature around the entire planet represents a huge increase in energy to both the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

“Food crops grow better in warmer temperatures. Frost and freezes have a limiting effect on food crops. Really.”

IOW, you paid absolutely no attention to what I said about the northward migration of growing zones or you have absolutely no idea of how to refute it.

FYI, there are many plants in temperate zones that don’t survive without frost and freezing. The biosphere doesn’t consist of only food crops and they all interact with each other so that the loss of some organisms can have damaging effects on others that depend on them either for food or for culling.

"Ah, so you think that just because they were wrong in the AMOUNT of temperature increase that the whole theory should be scrapped?"

“Yes. Unless they can predict what will happen, and then it happens, the model is incorrect.”

There’s a difference between the model being incorrect and the theory being incorrect. A model is merely a way to predict what will happen but test results are often off what the model predicted. That doesn’t mean that the theory was wrong, but just that the model was wrong or that every factor that could affect the result might not have been known.

To give an example, the predictions, or models as to what would happen when the first atomic bomb was exploded ranged from nothing much more than a big explosion to an explosion that would set the atmosphere on fire and destroy the planet. Those models were all wrong, but the theory of a chain reaction setting of an explosion bigger than anything before it was correct.

There were orders of magnitude fewer parameters involved in calculating the first atomic explosion than there are in predicting climate change, and they were much easier to determine what they would be, so that model was “duck soup” compared to predicting climate change to the degree of accuracy you seem to think is possible.

I’m working on an experiment in the lab right now to determine polymer migration using approved accelerated stability testing.

Your objection merely because the models haven’t worked out exactly is wildly off the mark and shows a lack of understanding just what scientific models are, how they’re used and what a scientific theory is.

“And I dispute that the climate has warmed up the amount they claim it already has.”

Dispute all you want but that won’t change the facts. Neither one of us is a climate scientist so neither one of us has the standing to dispute the actual statistics that have been gathered by real climate scientists. Saying that you disbelieve the figures isn’t much different than an ostrich sticking it’s head in the sand thinking that because it can’t see a lion approaching that it disputes the existence of the lion in the first place.

When you have some credentials as a climate scientist then you can dispute the actual figures. But until then, your disputing them and saying that they’re less counts for no more than if I were to say that they’re double what’s reported.

“So if a model can't predict the known past, from a given starting point, it's pretty well worthless.”

No. That just shows that either all the factors that go into the actual situation aren’t yet known. There are millions, if not billions of factors that go into predicting climate. There isn’t a computer yet built that can handle all the needed calculations, IF the input figures were all known exactly.

But that doesn’t make the model or the theory incorrect. It just means that we still have a ways to go to make the models more accurate.
Post a reply Back to Topics